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.

Criminal Code

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB]

Madam Speaker, today we are debating a very unfortunately worded piece of legislation, Bill C-6, an act to amend the Criminal Code regarding conversion therapy. I say it is unfortunate because this legislation fails to accurately define what conversion therapy is. It fails to provide clarity for Canadians, and I believe that it puts LGBTQ+ Canadians, children, parents, religious leaders and medical professionals at risk.

From the outset, I have been clear that I do not support conversion therapy, which involves coercive, involuntary and abusive practices that seek to change someone's sexual orientation. The evidence we have heard is clear: These practices have been harmful to those who have participated and they should not be allowed to continue.

The problem I have as a legislator is that the government has adopted a definition of conversion therapy that goes far beyond the scope of this harmful practice, and risks creating significant harms for families as a result. Going by the very definition the government has included in the legislation, we are asked to accept that even discouraging someone from “non-heterosexual attraction or sexual behaviour or non-cisgender gender expression” is a criminal act of conversion therapy.

The Minister of Justice has tried to assure members of the House that honest discussions about sexuality will not be criminalized under this act, but it is very apparent that the wording has been left so vague as to open up the very real possibility that the courts could interpret honest discussions about sexuality as potentially criminal. Without further clarification, we are introducing confusion into the Criminal Code, which could potentially lead to many honest Canadians being subject to a criminal investigation for honest discussions about sexuality.

The legislation is also potentially very harmful to children under the age of 16, who I believe are unable to truly consent to life-altering surgeries and drug regimens to achieve gender transition. This legislation could lead to the criminalization of important information streams that are essential for people to make informed decisions regarding gender transitions. In the recent United Kingdom High Court decision of Bell v. Tavistock, the court ruled that it is highly unlikely that children under 13 could truly consent to the use of puberty blockers. The court also analyzed the considerable effects of these treatments and concluded that it was even doubtful that children under the age of 16 could understand the long-term risks and consequences of these treatments.

This legislation potentially undermines the ability of medical professionals to share critical medical information that may lead to discouraging a child from undergoing a gender transition. The consequences for these children, as we have seen in the Tavistock case, are permanent and tragic. This puts LGBTQ+ youth at significant risk, as they may not be given access to the necessary medical information and frank advice needed for them to make informed decisions.

I am also very concerned over the effect this legislation could have on families, the foundational building blocks of a free society. The inclusion of gender expression and penalties for the repression of non-cisgender behaviour creates risks for families that could result in bad outcomes for children.

It is not hard to imagine a young boy who wants to go to school dressed in female clothes. Many parents would force their child to wear what they believe are gender-appropriate clothes, and I believe in the majority of those cases the parents are doing it out of a genuine care and concern for the well-being of their child. When that child goes to school, perhaps he will tell the teacher that he believes he is of another gender and that his parents refuse to let him wear female clothing. If the practice of conversion therapy, as poorly defined by the government, is made a criminal offence, teachers would probably have little choice but to report the parents to children's services for allegations of emotional abuse. The ramifications of this outcome would be highly damaging to the welfare of children, families and society. The definition of conversion therapy must be clarified, and the rights of well-meaning parents who are caring for their children must be protected.

One result of this legislation is that it could lead to an infringement on the rights of LGBTQ+ Canadians to seek out services they may genuinely wish to access. In my exploration of this topic, I spoke with members of the LGBTQ+ community who, for religious or personal reasons, felt they did not want to engage in certain activities.

In some cases, members of these communities may have been struggling with issues of sex addiction or sexual practices that could lead to serious physical, emotional or spiritual consequences. Under this legislation, it would not necessarily be illegal to offer services that would be covered under the definition of “conversion therapy” to consenting adults. However, it would be very difficult for LGBTQ+ adults to find or access these services considering the effect of this legislation, which is essentially to make these services impossible to advertise and, by extension, to access in Canada.

This could even lead to cases of discrimination, whereby a heterosexual who is seeking counsel and support for dealing with sex addiction or harmful sexual behaviours will receive treatment, but an LGBTQ+ person would be turned away. I do not think the government intended to discriminate against LGBTQ Canadians, but I believe that it is a very real possibility under this legislation as it has been drafted. Again, this demonstrates why the flawed definition of “conversion therapy” is leading to confusion and significant potential adverse outcomes for LGBTQ Canadians.

Furthermore, the legislation's poor definition of “conversion therapy” could potentially lead to outcomes whereby well-meaning people with bonafide constitutionally protected beliefs will be made into criminals. When people are driven by a sincere desire to help those who come to them struggling with issues, they should not be treated as criminals for sharing their perspective. In the case of religious leaders who are approached by members of their congregation looking for guidance, I believe that under this legislation, the very act of even sharing passages of the Bible could be considered a criminal act of conversion therapy.

These provisions create the very real possibility of criminal sanctions against those who hold unpopular opinions in whole or in part because of those opinions. Punishing people for having unpopular opinions or beliefs is not a Canadian value. Given the religious views of conservative Muslims and Christians, among others, it is probable that those impacted by this legislation will be people who come from various faith backgrounds. This is potentially a case of enforcing religious discrimination.

Jail time is not an appropriate punishment for those who hold differing viewpoints, particularly religious views. The criminal penalties in this legislation, which include a maximum of between two and five years in prison, are on par with assault, abandonment of a child and infanticide. To treat people who hold constitutionally protected beliefs on par with those who kill children is completely disproportionate. I propose to the government that the provisions of this act are already addressed by human rights legislation and human rights tribunals. Given that we are debating competing rights, such as the equality rights of LGBTQ Canadians and the rights of freedom of expression and freedom of religion, it would be far better to delegate the adjudication of these difficult decisions to a body that is equipped to deal with them.

In cases where there is evidence of harm related to conversion therapy, such as forcible confinement, assault or kidnapping, the Criminal Code already has significant mechanisms to deal with these matters. In cases where there is a dispute between people over what is and what is not legitimate to say to somebody regarding their sexual orientation or gender identity and expression, it would be far better for the human rights tribunals to be investigating and making decisions on these matters rather than the criminal courts.

In closing, I have illustrated a number of reasons, including the poor definition, the potential for discrimination and the possibility that human rights tribunals could do a far better job of adjudicating these difficult decisions on competing rights, that I cannot support this legislation at this time. I believe that Bill C-6 would harm some LGBTQ Canadians, some families and society in general, which outweighs the potential benefits outlined in it. If the government is truly interested in working in good faith with concerned Canadians, it will commit to amending the definition in this legislation to provide clarity and protections for families, counsellors and medical professionals.

[Derek Sloan, Independent, Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON]

Madam Speaker, the member mentioned the Keira Bell case in the United Kingdom. That is very important.

I want to ask the member about some of the guidance we heard from expert psychologists and psychiatrists at committee. They were concerned that this bill would foster an affirmation-only process that would put some kids on a one-track road to affirmation, which leads to chemical hormone-blocking treatments and maybe even surgery. If the member could expand on that, I would appreciate it.

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB]

Madam Speaker, the Minister of Justice has been at pains to explain and to try to defend this legislation, saying that an exploration of sexual identity or sexual orientation would not be subject to criminal sanctions, but it seems to be very clear in the way that the legislation has been written and the intent behind it that there is no room for people to have confusion about their orientation or their gender. It is either black or white. However, we know there is a lot of gray in between.

I believe the definition needs to be very clear, because these are really complicated issues. To put criminal sanctions of two to five years on people, many of whom have a sincere desire to help people who may be struggling, is vastly disproportionate and inappropriate.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Madam Speaker, I sense that, at this time, the Conservative Party is being influenced by its religious right wing and is looking for excuses.

The Conservatives say they are against conversion therapy, but they do not want to vote to ban it. Conversion therapy is an abomination that sometimes does lasting harm to those who undergo it.

Does my colleague agree that all forms of conversion therapy that do not result from private or family conversations are not healthy? The idea behind this type of therapy is that certain sexual orientations, gender identities or gender expressions are not healthy.

Is that not what is making the Conservative Party uneasy at this time?

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB]

Madam Speaker, I reject the premise of the member's question.

If the government were to fix the definition to tackle the real problem that is conversion therapy, I would be more than happy to vote for this legislation. The fact that the government has not been willing to address those concerns that hundreds of constituents have written to me about and the views that thousands of people across Canada have expressed shows me that this is a cynical ploy by the Liberal government.

I have to say that I respect the NDP position on this issue, because I firmly believe it actually wants a ban on conversion therapy, unlike the Liberal government, which says it wants a ban on conversion therapy but then leaves the bill to linger on the Order Paper for months and months on end, only bringing it up at the last second.

It is a cynical power play by the Liberal government. This government is not actually interested in getting a ban on conversion therapy passed.

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

Madam Speaker, it is certainly amazing that the member is advocating postponing the debate or discussion on this legislation.

The government is bringing forward a number of pieces of legislation that are of critical public interest, including the budget bill. The Conservatives are playing that destructive force of delay and prevention, trying to take a day off, not wanting to debate things, and then criticizing the government for not having a debate.

The bottom line is this: Can the member be straightforward and tell Canadians why Conservatives are using the excuse of the definition in order to justify their position? They cannot have it both ways. Conservatives cannot say they do not support the legislation and they do not support conversion therapy.

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB]

Madam Speaker, the answer is simple: The definition is flawed. If the definition were not flawed, there would not be a problem here today. We proposed a very simple, straightforward amendment to fix the definition, and the government has refused to work with us on it.

The fact is that the bill came out of committee in December and we were back at work in late January. The government could have put this up for debate at a number of opportunities, but it only really put it up for debate very close to the closing of the House. It leads me to believe that the government is not being sincere with this legislation and that it is not really, truly interested in getting it passed at all.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-6, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (conversion therapy), be read the third time and passed.

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

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to once again enter into debate in this place, and to do so on an important subject that should be a unifying force among all Canadians. Unfortunately, we have seen politics being played in a way that is inhibiting the ability to accomplish what is intended here.

Let me first clarify a couple of things on which I have heard some of my colleagues asking questions. It is unfortunate, because time and time again we Conservatives have made it very clear that we are opposed to conversion therapy, as have I. All Canadians deserve to be treated with dignity and respect, yet we have seen time and time again throughout this debate the politicization of a very important subject for partisan gain. I find it unfortunate that this has been the case with this dialogue, and in some cases we have seen the shutting down of dialogue.

I have heard from many constituents on this matter. I have heard from folks across Canada and on both sides of the issue. What I found very interesting is that the dialogue that has been offered by members of the House, and in some cases not just members of the Conservative Party but other parties as well, has been very constructive in ensuring that there is a legitimate, respectful discussion about something that has truly had a significant impact on people's lives and that needs to be addressed. However, we have seen some members try to dismiss some of the valid concerns that have been brought forward, which has taken away from what could have been a unifying discussion among all Canadians. I am troubled that this has been a game played by the Liberal government time and time again.

My colleagues have articulated very well some of the concerns related to the definition of conversion therapy and some of the possible unintended consequences of legislation that is not specifically clear. In fact, I would point to members of the Liberal Party specifically; when the Minister of Justice was asked questions on the bill, he acknowledged that there were some challenges in the possible interpretations of the legislation before us.

However, I will go back a little further, because I think that the context for the discussion that we are having today is very important.

The bill was introduced prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, which we all know ended up basically seeing the legislative agenda of the government shut down for an extended period of time. After Parliament was prorogued, a whole bunch of bills had to be reintroduced. First, to the inevitable questions that will come from members of the government party who are somehow blaming Conservatives for being obstructionists, I would simply suggest that the 35-plus-day delay, the committee dysfunction that has resulted from the government covering up various aspects of investigations into its members' conduct and whatnot, has led to a significant delay.

However, what could have been an opportunity on a bill like this was not taken advantage of. Again, it was an opportunity to unify Canadians around an important discussion. The Liberals did not take advantage of that. When the government brought forward this legislation prior to the pandemic, some concerns were raised, and some of my colleagues raised those concerns. Interest across this country on both sides of the debate raised concerns on this subject. However, when the government reintroduced the bill in the fall, it did not take the opportunity to clarify some of these aspects of the bill. That, I would suggest, would have been a much more straightforward process to allow Canadians to be unified in opposition to something that all Canadians are opposed to, which is conversion therapy. The fact is that the Liberals did not take advantage of the opportunity to provide leadership and carefully consider some of the issues that had been brought to their attention.

The result is that close to a year and a half later, we are seeing this debated, and some of the accusations that are being made by members opposite are certainly very troubling and call into question the integrity of certain members of this House. That is unfortunate. We need to be able to have dialogue and discussion and ensure that we are all working in the best interests of our constituents.

I have heard from constituents on this matter, including before the current Bill C-6 debate. I have heard members of the Liberal Party talk about how nobody shares the views that I and a number of other Conservatives have articulated when it comes to concerns, and that is simply not true. The fact is that there are those who have raised concerns. The member for Sturgeon River—Parkland who spoke previously talked about some of the challenges in relation to the committee work that was done. The committee had a significant number of briefs that were submitted but not considered. It is our job as parliamentarians and legislators to ensure that we take great care in things as simple as the wording of a definition, and also the bigger picture, the possible implications of legislation and the possible impact that this legislation could have on, for example, people of faith and various folks within the LGBT community. Unfortunately, we saw that those concerns were dismissed, and when there was an opportunity within committee to have a wholesome discussion, we saw politics being played instead. I find that very unfortunate.

Further, we could have seen the definition fixed and some clarity added to this particular piece of legislation. I would suggest that if this were the only piece of legislation in which this sort of issue was brought forward, then it might be a fair criticism, but the reality is that it is not. Time and time again we see legislation brought forward by the current government that seems to be intentionally divisive. That is not leadership. It is unfortunate that in a debate as significant as this one, we are seeing politics being played.

I have no doubt that there will be those who are ready to attack members of the Conservative Party who may vote against this bill. To those, I would share a couple of brief comments.

I mentioned earlier that I have heard from many constituents on this matter, including before the issue was initially voted on, and I took great care on both sides of the issue to speak to a number of those individuals. There were countless phone calls, emails and messages back and forth regarding this subject, and in the respectful dialogue that ensued, I saw something incredible happen, something that is unique to democratic discourse, and that was the idea of respect.

The fact is that not everybody who reached out agreed with the position the government has or the position that I had in terms of the opposition to this bill at second reading, but after discussion, dialogue and respectful discourse, there was a level of unity that I found very encouraging, and it is unfortunate that this has not always translated into this discussion that we now have on the floor, whether physically or virtually, in this House of Commons.

It is that sort of division that is causing a breakdown and a lack of trust in the work that needs to be accomplished by all of us as parliamentarians. In my case, I had hundreds of people, the vast majority of whom encouraged me to maintain my position on this matter and to share my concerns respectfully about the need to have clarity in this legislation. For members of the government to somehow suggest that this is an ideological escapade would be misleading at best and outright dishonest at worst, and I think it is a troubling trend we see within our democratic discourse.

Let me finish by saying this: It is important for us to have respectful dialogue in this place, and as someone who can be very partisan, I will say that we need to ensure that good governance, good legislation, respectful dialogue, and respect for Canadians and the rule of law are at the very forefront of all we do.

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

Madam Speaker, during my presentation, I presented the personal and emotional testimonies of those who found that gender transition was not a permanent solution to their gender dysphoria and who found worth in their own process of detransition. These individuals have made their stories public, about detransitioning or deciding not to make transitions surgically or with the use of hormones. They stress that they are in no way wanting to be disrespectful toward other people's personal choices. As it stands, Bill C-6 would criminalize people like them.

As it is currently written, could the member speak to how this will restrict the free, respectful and exploratory speech of those with valuable lived experiences?

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

Madam Speaker, the member brings up a very good point that we saw represented in much of the evidence that was presented to committee. The suggestion that somehow there is universal acceptance of Bill C-6 as a need to move forward to address these issues is simply incorrect.

There are many lived stories from Canadians from coast to coast who have demonstrated that it is not as clear cut as is being suggested and that the implications of this bill could be very severe and would actually take away the rights of Canadians who are living their lives. It is very troubling that could be one of the significant implications of a bill being passed that has not had the proper consideration and due debate around some of the very valid concerns that have been brought forward.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, my question to the member for Battle River—Crowfoot is about a video that he posted on his Facebook page on May 21, 2020 taken from the website “fixthedefinition.ca”. This video promotes petitions opposing the ban on conversion therapy proposed in Bill C-6 and features a prominent social Conservative activist repeating disinformation about the provisions of Bill C-6. This video purports to give voice to those in the LGBTQ community opposed to the bill, but if people watch to the end, they can see the notice “produced by the offices of” the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan and the member for Cloverdale—Langley City.

First, was the member aware that this piece of disinformation and propaganda was produced by two of his colleagues? Second, does his reposting of the video mean that he thinks producing such a video is a proper use of House of Commons funds?

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

Madam Speaker, I do find it interesting that the member would be quoting from an article from a supposed “news site”. I say that with air quotes because it is funded by a wing of the NDP. It is this sort of divisiveness that is taking away from the very real concerns that have been brought forward about Bill C-6. For this member to hedge a premise of a question in a way that somehow alleges that there is nefarious intent behind the very real concerns that myself and other members of my party have brought forward regarding Bill C-6, is exactly why, and I wish the member would have listened more carefully to my speech. The need for respectful dialogue is paramount in this place so that we can all do our jobs as legislators to ensure that we are serving Canadians in the best way possible. Certainly, I endeavour to do that each and every day and I would encourage the member opposite to do so also.

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

Madam Speaker, the member says “respectful dialogue”, but I thought the member for the NDP's intervention was extremely respectful. She asked a very simple, straightforward question and the member chose not to answer it.

I would like to give the member an opportunity to answer her question about that video that was produced.

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

Madam Speaker, my question to that member would be very simple: Has he had the opportunity to read some of the evidence that was submitted to the committee when Bill C-6 was studied? If so, he would see very clearly that there is a wide variety of perspectives on this matter that demonstrate that it is not as clear cut as the divisive nature that certain individuals in this House are trying to make it out to be.

I would say, with great respect to many members of this House who have encouraged that effective dialogue, it is unfortunate that there are some who would stoop to such a low level that they would discourage what would ultimately result in better outcomes for Canadians.