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

[Rachel Bendayan, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

Madam Speaker, I could not agree more with my colleague. I also believe that this bill and the idea of banning conversion therapy has widespread support in Canada among many different communities.

I look forward to the member's support and the support of all members in this House for Bill C-6.

[Rachel Bendayan, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am so pleased that Bill C-6 has the support of many Conservative members. I hope it will have the unanimous support of this House. It is incredibly important, as I have outlined in my speech, that we ban conversion therapy in this country. It is a barbaric practice that has no good in it.

With respect to my colleague's question regarding a blood ban, we have committed as a government to move forward on this and I look forward to working with her and other members in this House on a future bill.

[Rachel Bendayan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Small Business]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to rise in debate on Bill C-6, which seeks to ban conversion therapy in this country. Let us make no mistake; the proposed legislation is revolutionary. It would make Canada’s laws on conversion therapy the most progressive and comprehensive in the world.

Conversion therapy is a degrading practice that targets LGBTQ2 Canadians to try to change their sexual orientation or gender identity, and can lead to life-long trauma. There is widespread consensus in the medical community that conversion therapy is extremely harmful.

A recent study in the United States found almost 30% of LGBTQ2 youth who had experienced conversion therapy had attempted suicide. Let us think about that for a moment. Let us think about our duty as legislators, our responsibility to prohibit practices that endanger the very lives of the people we aim to protect and serve.

As with other pieces of legislation, in favour of which I have spoken, Bill C-6, for me, is also about freedom: the freedom for everyone to be who they are, the freedom to express one's gender, the freedom to express one's sexual orientation, the freedom from being forced to change and the freedom from being enticed to change by others. It is the freedom to be ourselves and only we know who that is. This is the freedom we should want for all Canadians.

I hope the House will will stand firm and vote unanimously to support the bill, which will send a clear message to the LGBTQ2 community, to our young people and to the entire world.

I would like to take a moment to pay tribute to the many community organizations that have fought for the rights of transgender people and the entire LGBTQ2 community and continue to do so.

Back home in Mile-End, I have had the privilege of speaking with people from Fraîchement Jeudi, a community radio program that gives a voice to Montreal's LGBTQ2 community. I am also thinking of the Centre de solidarité lesbienne, located in my riding, which provides support to lesbians who have experienced domestic violence, sexual assault, grief, difficulty coming out or any other difficulties related to their well-being.

Montreal is home to many other organizations. Here are just a few: the Fondation Émergence, which combats homophobia and transphobia; RÉZO, which offers psychological support to LGBTQ2 men; and the Groupe de recherche et d'intervention sociale, or GRIS-Montréal, which works to raise awareness, especially in schools. We often think about Montreal's pride parade, which, under normal circumstances, draws millions of Montrealers. These organizations work day in and day out to ensure the inclusion of everyone in our society, no matter who they love.

Our laws and especially our Criminal Code are tools we can use to protect the most vulnerable and to prevent and remedy injustices. The bill before us is progressive and comprehensive. It bans so-called conversion therapy. It goes without saying that such therapy is not based on science. This harmful and unacceptable practice rooted in homophobia, biphobia and transphobia has no place in our society.

Bill C-6 would add five offences to the Criminal Code: causing a child to undergo conversion therapy; removing a child from Canada with the intention that the child undergo conversion therapy; causing a person to undergo conversion therapy against the person's will; advertising an offer to provide conversion therapy; and receiving a financial benefit from the provision of conversion therapy.

Before I move to the details of this important bill, I would also like to recognize the incredible advocacy of a member of my community in Outremont. Dr. Kimberley Manning is an associate professor of political science at Concordia University. She is also a fierce advocate for transgender rights and one of the directing minds behind the website GenderCreativeKids.ca, as well as a not-for-profit organization serving the parents of gender non-conforming children. We owe a debt of gratitude to her and to all parents who have advocated tirelessly for the rights of their children and for minors everywhere.

The bill before us proposes five new Criminal Code offences related to conversion therapy, including, first and foremost, causing a minor to undergo conversion therapy. It would also ban the removal of a minor from Canada to undergo conversion therapy abroad, make it an offence to cause a person to undergo conversion therapy against their will, make it illegal to profit from providing conversion therapy, as well as ban any advertising for conversion therapy and authorize courts to order the seizure of conversion therapy publicity or their removal from the Internet.

Conversion therapy can come in many different forms. It may last an hour, a week, months or years, and it is always incredibly damaging. Conversion therapy is designed to convince a person that they are living a lie and to renounce their homosexual or bisexual orientation, or gender identity, in the case of a trans or non-binary person.

I want to talk about the extent and impact of this practice. The statistics speak volumes. In February 2020, the Community-Based Research Centre, a Vancouver organization dedicated to LGBTQ+ men's health released interim findings of its Sex Now Survey. The findings of this survey of 7,200 people show the extent of this practice in 2020.

In Canada, nearly 20% of sexual minority men report having every experienced sexual orientation, gender identity or gender expression change efforts. Of them, nearly 40% have experienced conversion therapy in Canada. Younger men, and two-spirit, trans and non-binary respondents are more likely to be targeted by coercion.

These therapies have many repercussions. Undergoing conversion therapy is associated with various psychosocial outcomes such as depression, anxiety, social isolation and delay in coming out. These are serious impacts.

A person who has undergone conversion therapy, especially a young person, will have experienced trauma and will live with the consequences their entire life, at the expense of their mental health. That person will feel that they are not authentic, that they should be ashamed of their identity, that they must live a lie or even that they do not deserve to live.

Many adults who survived this injustice in their youth have described how they are still unable to establish a relationship of trust with their family, peers and colleagues. In some cases, they even find it difficult to pursue their studies or get a job. They often say that they even find it difficult to have a healthy intimate relationship or live their gender identity to the fullest.

Even worse, we know that these practices can lead our children, brothers, sisters, friends and colleagues in the LGBTQ+ community to have suicidal ideation and even act on it. How can we tolerate this in Canada in 2020?

The practice of conversion therapy, indeed, cannot be tolerated. On the one hand, it causes such psychological trauma as to lead individuals, statistically, to much higher rates of depression and suicide. On the other hand, the underlying rationale for conversion therapy runs antithetical to our values as a country: our values of freedom and liberty, the premise that every Canadian should be free to love whomever they choose and to express their individuality however they choose. This is yet one more step in our visceral drive as human beings to express ourselves and our most fundamental identity the way that we decide.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is lovely to be in the House and listen to the reaffirmation of Bill C-6. Of course, I am in support of the bill.

I would like to read a quote, if I may, from Dr. Kristopher Wells from Alberta. He is the Canadian chair for public understanding of sexual and gender minority youth. He writes:

It's much more underground.... It might be happening after business hours. It might be happening in a basement, or unfortunately it's still happening in some faith communities and cultural communities, under the guise of praying away the gay. Or that homosexuality doesn't exist in that community, and anyone who shows same-sex tendencies or who's gender diverse needs to be fixed or cured in order to gain acceptance in their community.

When we hear things like this, the bill is clearly not enough to address the underground impacts of homophobia. Clearly, this bill cannot repair past damages. Clearly, this bill does not address hate and homophobia in our communities. Will the member and the Liberal government commit to funding support programs and capacity-building programs for the SOGI community?

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indigenous Services]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Outremont.

I would like to start by acknowledging that I am speaking from the traditional territory of the Mississaugas of the Credit First Nation.

I am proud to speak today in favour of Bill C-6, an act to amend the Criminal Code in regard to conversion therapy. The bill would amend the Criminal Code to criminalize conversion therapy related conduct. The proposed amendments would protect minors from conversion therapy both within and outside of Canada, adults who are vulnerable to being forced to undergo conversion therapy and Canadians from the commercialization of conversion therapy.

Conversion therapy refers to alleged treatments that seek to change the sexual orientation of bisexual, gay and lesbian individuals to heterosexual, a person's gender identity to cisgender and to repress or reduce non-heterosexual attraction or non-conforming sexual behaviour. This outdated and much maligned practice comes in many forms including counselling, behaviour modification and talk therapy.

In our 2019 platform, the government made a commitment to protect the dignity and equality of LGBTQ2 Canadians by ending the dehumanizing practice of conversion therapy. The bill supports that promise and builds on other related measures, including those from the last Parliament when we strengthened protections for transgender people in the Criminal Code and the Canadian Human Rights Act, through the former Bill C-16.

I had the pleasure of joining the health committee in the last Parliament for the study on the health of LGBTQ2 Canadians. A number of witnesses spoke about the negative impact that so-called conversion therapy has. I always hesitate to use the word “therapy” because therapy to me implies something positive while there is nothing at all positive about this discriminatory practice.

While many witnesses spoke about this issue, I want quote Dr. Travis Salway, post-doctoral research fellow at the school of population and public health at the University of B.C. who testified at committee. He said:

Conversion therapy is an umbrella term for practices that intend to change an individual's sexual orientation and gender identity. It is among the most extreme forms of psychological abuse and violence, leaving those exposed to manage the stress associated with a severe form of withholding for many years. ...conversion therapy has been unequivocally denounced by the Canadian Psychological Association and multiple other professional bodies.

Despite those denouncements, in a recent Canadian survey, 4% of sexual minority men reported having attended conversion therapy. On this basis, as many as 20,000 sexual minority men and countless more sexual minority women and transgender people have been exposed. Exposure to conversion therapy was associated with numerous health problems in the study we conducted. Most notably, one-third of those who had completed conversion therapy programs attempted suicide.

Sexual minority youth are especially vulnerable to being enrolled in conversion programs against their will, yet in Canada we lack federal policies to protect our youth from these harmful practices. Many, if not most, conversion programs are practised outside health care providers' offices. Thus, the current situation in which some provinces ban conversion practices by a subset of providers is insufficient and inequitable....

Suicide attempts, suicide ideation, treatment for anxiety or depression and illicit drug use were all higher in those who had attended conversion therapy. The health consequences are quite large. That suggests to me that as an infringement, as an assault, putting someone into conversion therapy, especially youths who aren't able to choose for themselves, is quite a serious offence....

Dr. Salway's testimony was echoed by other witnesses, which led the health committee to recommend, “That the Government of Canada work with the provinces and territories to eliminate the practice of conversion therapy in Canada and consider making further modifications to the Criminal Code.” The bill we are debating today fulfills this recommendation, as well as the calls from advocates and the medical profession and our own commitment to end the abhorrent practice of conversion therapy.

Yesterday, the member for Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke spoke eloquently and passionately about the bill. He quite accurately described a number of red herrings that are circulating to discredit the bill and create confusion in the public. The bill would in no way criminalize affirming support to those struggling with their sexual orientation or gender identity, given by friends, family members, teachers, social workers or religious leaders.

I have seen a flyer circulated by Campaign Life Coalition claiming that the bill would “deny spiritual guidance and pastoral care for people who identify as LGBT even if they ask for it”, and “that many Canadians have seen their lives turned around by turning to clinical therapy, prayer and spiritual counselling to overcome unwanted same sex attraction”.

There were more absurd and troubling claims made, but I am not going to justify them by repeating them here in the House of Commons. I am deeply disturbed by these claims, which are fundamentally based on the belief that sexual orientation and gender identity are a choice that an individual makes. They ignore the very real harms of conversion therapy: self-hatred, depression, suicidal ideation and suicide attempts.

These claims and the practice of conversion therapy as a whole also perpetuate harmful myths and stereotypes about LGBTQ2 people, in particular, that sexual orientation other than heterosexual and gender identities other than cisgender can and should be changed. This type of discriminatory messaging stigmatizes LGBTQ2 persons, undermines their dignity and goes against our shared goal of equality.

Given conversion therapy's proven harms and its impact on the most marginalized among us, this bill would define conversion therapy for Criminal Code purposes 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.”

Secondly, this legislation will criminalize causing minors to undergo conversion therapy, removing minors from Canada to undergo conversion therapy abroad, causing a person to undergo conversion therapy against their will, profiting or receiving a material benefit from the provision of conversion therapy and advertising an offer to provide conversion therapy.

Our government's approach will protect all minors from conversion therapy because we know that minors are disproportionately impacted by this harmful practice. The offences I listed above, taken together, fill a gap in the criminal law by specifically addressing conversion therapy conduct. They respond to the evidence and, together with existing offences that address aspects of conversion therapy such as assault and forcible confinement, create a comprehensive criminal law response to the harms that conversion therapy is known to cause.

The proposed offences in the bill would not include legitimate therapies, primarily because gender-affirming practices, treatments and services do not aim to change a patient's sexual orientation to heterosexual or gender identity to cisgender, nor are they aimed at repressing or reducing non-heterosexual attraction or sexual behaviour. For greater clarity, the legislation also states that these types of practices are not captured by the definition of conversion therapy.

I want to emphasize that this legislation does not seek to, nor would it, ban open-ended conversations between an individual and a parent, another family member, faith leader or anyone else about their sexuality. Despite the claims of the Leader of the Opposition and organizations like Campaign Life, this legislation would not ban talking, but it would criminalize a heinous practice that inflicts very real and documented harms to LGBTQ2 Canadians.

We want a country that respects the differences between us. In Canada, everyone must not only feel safe to be who they are, but actually be safe. Bill C-6 would assist in ensuring that everyone feels considered, accepted, respected, valued and safe. I urge all members of this House to support this important bill.

[Richard Lehoux, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

Madam Speaker, I commend my colleague for her speech.

I would like to ask her a question about Bill C-6 and the prorogation of Parliament on August 18.

Does she think that we could have dealt with this issue more quickly had Parliament not been prorogued?

Personally, I think that we should also spend some time examining other bills.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

I think there will be other communities we can look at, but today we are debating Bill C-6, which focuses specifically on conversion therapy, to help the LGBTQ+ community. That is what is important today. The message is for that community. There will be other bills. There will be other communities we can look at, but today I would really like to remain focused on Bill C-6.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am very proud to rise today to speak to Bill C-6, which amends the Criminal Code with regard to conversion therapy. I already had the opportunity to speak to this subject some time ago in response to the Minister of Diversity and Inclusion and Youth, and that, too, was an honour for me.

My speech today will focus on three things. First, I will talk about the importance of this bill for the LGBTQ+ community. Second, I will show how Quebec is once again at the forefront on this issue. Third, I will conclude with what I hope to see in the post-pandemic era for the LGBTQ+ community, which has been hard hit by COVID-19.

We are debating this bill today because the government has finally decided to not only ban but also criminalize the practice of conversion therapy. According to several witnesses, some of these practices are more like torture than genuine therapy. Conversion therapy has also been described as being like witchcraft or something out of a bad dream. It is hard to believe this is still happening today, in 2020.

I think that we can all agree that this practice, which is promoted and supported primarily by religious groups, is based on the idea that homosexuality is unnatural and wrong, that it is one of the most serious sins and that it could lead a person straight to hell.

Unfortunately, homophobia still exists in 2020. Expressions of it can be seen practically every day. It is frankly unacceptable that religious groups continue to stigmatize homosexuality. People in this community should not have to live in fear any longer. Human beings should not be subjected to goodness knows what kind of therapeutic process to become someone they simply are not.

Many of us know people in our circles who have admitted how hard it still is to come out of the closet and affirm their identity. This bill does not solve all the problems of the LGBTQ+ community, but it is clearly an important step in advancing the debate.

Let's get back to the issue before us today, namely conversion therapy. The media has already shared the story of a boy from Quebec who underwent one of these so-called conversion therapies, and my colleague has referenced this case, too. Anyone who takes the time to really pay attention to his story cannot help but feel empathy for him. No one could condone inflicting such anguish on someone, or imagine that a child could feel such deep self-hatred.

As the aunt of a niece and nephew who I want to see grow up happy, I find it hard to believe that this boy's family did not have good intentions. However, his religion and his intense desire to not disappoint his loved ones or his God pushed him to use his own money to pay for so-called reparative therapy that would make him “normal”. He even went so far as to describe conversion therapy as social support for self-rejection. I have mentioned that powerful, sad turn of phrase before.

What is even sadder is that this story echoes that of many children and adolescents who just want to be loved and fit in. I appreciate this government bill for trying to prevent this type of situation from happening again.

The government can obviously count on my support and that of all my colleagues, including our leader. At a press conference I attended with him, he said that members of the LGBTQ+ community must get the full respect they deserve as soon as possible, just like anyone else.

Many countries have led the way in criminalizing conversion therapy. Quebec recently started the process too, when our Minister of Justice, Simon Jolin-Barrette, introduced Bill 70 in the National Assembly. Bill 70 is called “An Act to protect persons from conversion therapy provided to change their sexual orientation, gender identity or gender expression”.

I also want to mention that in 2018, Theresa May, the then prime minister of Great Britain, described conversion therapy intended to change an individual's sexual orientation as an “abhorrent practice”.

The awful thing is that the vast majority of gay individuals ended up estranged from their families. They went off to live their lives and tried to deny who they were. Some even went through conversion therapy against their will before finally deciding to be who they really are.

It is very hard to put ourselves in their shoes and imagine what it is like to go through conversion therapy. Eventually, people realize that they need to stop bowing to all the pressure and acknowledge that it is not working. Conversion therapy does not transform people. Instead, people realize that it does not reflect who they really are.

Many have spent decades trying to fight against themselves with therapy, fighting their true nature, and asking themselves a lot of questions, asking themselves why. Some even wonder why they were born in their body, why they feel as they do, why they have a given gender. They wonder who they really are. They end up hating or despising themselves. We do not want anyone to get to that point.

People who have gone through this kind of therapy are survivors. Now we can use Bill C-6, the conversion therapy bill, to send them a clear social and political message and take those first steps. My hope for every member of the LGBTQ+ community is not just to survive, but to be able to live in a way that is true to who they are, how they feel and who they love.

It seems that members of this community experience greater negative psychological impacts as a result of the pandemic than the rest of the population. Robert-Paul Juster, IUSMM researcher and professor of psychiatry at the University of Montreal explained:

There is a consensus that the LGBT community is at a greater risk of experiencing problems in the context of the COVID crisis simply because they do not have access to the same resources as heterosexual or cisgender people...Yes, there is a greater vulnerability due to their minority status, but there is also a greater potential for resilience.

Resilience is what I wish for them.

I would like to add one last thing. Pope Francis's statement in favour of the civil union of same-sex couples is perceived as a great demonstration of openness by experts and groups that advocate for LGBTQ+ rights. The head of the Catholic Church defended the right of gay couples, the “children of God”, to live in a civil union that protects them legally, as we can hear in the documentary Francesco, which is about the Pope and was shown last Wednesday for the first time at the Rome Film Fest. He stated that homosexual people “have a right to a family. What we need is to legislate civil unions, as they have a right to be legally covered. I defended this.” The Conseil québécois LGBTQ considers this to be a significant step for the church, which needs to adapt to our societies.

As the Bloc's critic for seniors, I want to point out that LGBTQ+ seniors, who faced prejudice and were confined during the pandemic without any resources, experienced a form of sexual mistreatment. We need to be there for them as we move forward, and this bill is an important step. We are sending a message so that the community can assert itself. Psychologists do not recognize that conversion therapy works. We must take action to prevent more suicides and to protect their rights.

[Rachel Bendayan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Small Business]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech.

I, too, was pleased to see the Government of Quebec follow suit with Bill 70. I think that is the perfect example of how the two levels of government can work together toward a common goal. Does the member agree that the federal government has a role to play with regard to the Criminal Code and Bill C-6?

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am not sure that I understood my colleague's comments.

I think that the intent of Bill C-6, just like the intent of the bill studied by Quebec, is to protect people's rights. It is about respecting their sexual identity, whatever that may be. It is part of who we are. If that is the tenor of her comments, I would say that we do have to work with community members to help them make progress and achieve true equality for all Canadians.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Shefford.

When the government said it was going to crack down on conversion therapy, the Bloc Québécois was very pleased, especially since the government had previously said it could do nothing following an April 2019 petition to ban the practice.

The Bloc Québécois views conversion therapy not as a medical procedure but as a barbaric practice designed to negate an individual's identity. Conversion therapy is pseudo-science. It is dangerous and degrading for those subjected to it, and it is totally ineffective to boot. People who provide sexual reorientation therapy are not health professionals. No self-respecting professional could provide this so-called service without realizing that it is essentially an affront to their profession.

This is 2020. It is about time we acknowledged that attraction to individuals of the same sex is a normal variation of human behaviour. It is therefore our duty to protect the victims of conversion therapy proponents, who tend to have very conservative religious views. We know the groups that promote conversion therapy are small and marginal, but we want to reaffirm that respecting beliefs goes hand in hand with respecting differences and ensuring the equality of all. Members of the LGBTQ2 community must get the respect they deserve as soon as possible.

Historically, Quebec has been a leader in human rights. The Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms has recognized sexual orientation as a prohibited ground of discrimination since 1977. It should also be noted that the gay and lesbian community has made significant gains since 1999. For example, in June 1999, the Government of Quebec passed Bill 32 to amend various legislative provisions concerning same sex couples. Other bills followed. Bill C-23 passed on January 1, 2001, and Bill 84 passed in June 2002. The federal government passed Bill C-38 on June 28, 2005. Even public and parapublic sectors negotiated protections for the LGBTQ2 community into their collective agreements.

Just because certain rights were recognized, including the recognition of same sex spouses, it does not mean that every barrier of discrimination against homosexuality will come down over night. These were important gains, but members of that community might agree that despite these societal advances, there is still a lot of work to do to eliminate the discrimination they endure. For gay youth and adults, the path to equality is strewn with many obstacles including ignorance and prejudice, labelling and discrimination, harassment and aggression.

Not so long ago, epidemiologist Travis Salway found that suicide is the leading cause of death among gay and bisexual men in Canada and he tried to understand why. He believes this is related to what is known as minority stress, which often leads to persistent negative thoughts and a feeling of despair. What is more, Mr. Salway has officially spoken out against sexual reorientation therapy.

In Canada, 47,000 sexual minority men have undergone conversion therapy. We do not have the figures for women, but that is a significant number of men. In Quebec, Gabriel Nadeau, a former member of a Pentecostal Protestant community who went through conversion therapy not once, not twice, but three times, has been speaking out on behalf of people who are being asked to be heterosexual despite being strongly attracted to someone of the other sex. His testimony is chilling:

In my community, it was believed that homosexuality was an evil spirit...I knew that exorcisms were performed.

That sounds like a movie.

Mr. Nadeau now accepts himself for who he is. He says that he would never return to his religious prison. I commend him for his strength and resilience, and I wish him all the best.

Not all stories end well, however. Conversion therapy can leave deep scars, as explained by the Canadian Psychological Association. It notes that such practices can result in negative outcomes such as distress, anxiety, depression, negative self-image, social isolation, a feeling of personal failure, difficulty sustaining relationships and sexual dysfunction.

The members of the Bloc Québécois are unanimously opposed to conversion therapy, because we believe that equality between Quebeckers is a fundamental value and an inalienable right in Quebec. Practices that deny the existence of a person's core identity must be condemned. We are pleased to see what is happening here, in the House of Commons.

In Quebec, respect for gender identity and sexual orientation is a value, and conversion therapy violates that value. That is why we will be supporting Bill C-6, which amends the Criminal Code to criminalize the following: causing a person to undergo conversion therapy against the person's will; causing a child to undergo conversion therapy; doing anything for the purpose of 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.

The Bloc Québécois has always been deeply committed to protecting and promoting the rights and freedoms of citizens. We have always been quick to combat discrimination based on sexual orientation. In fact, Quebec is following suit, as it is also looking at legislation. The Bloc Québécois is certainly very pleased that both parliaments are recognizing that, in a democracy, there is good reason to affirm collective values and regulate religious practices that go contrary to those values under the law.

I will end on a somewhat more personal note. I have always believed that what parents want first and foremost is for their children to be happy and for there to be no obstacles to this happiness. When my son told me he was gay, I felt sad. I was not sad because he was homosexual, but because I knew that he would face discrimination and have to endure insults. Like many others, he has been the victim of homophobia.

By passing Bill C-6, I believe that we will help create a society where the LGBTQ2 community will be better protected. I also believe that it is our duty to work with this community to help them to overcome the prejudices they experience.

[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, it is with pleasure that I continue with my comments from yesterday.

After listening to the debate yesterday, I wanted to highlight a couple of important points that were made. I believe the most important one is that people should feel free to be who they are. The consequences of societal pressures on people to conform to something they are not causes a great deal of stress and anxiety that leads to some very severe consequences. We heard about some of those consequences yesterday. The most extreme of these, of course, which is a sad reality, is that some people will ultimately commit suicide. This is not to mention the many other things that will take place as a result of society and attitudes that really need to change.

This is not to say we have not made progress. I am 58 years old, and in my generation there has been a great deal of change over the years. I am encouraged by that. Yesterday one of my colleagues said that we want to make Canada the safest place to fall in love, and that speaks of Canada's rich diversity. Diversity goes far beyond our wonderful ethnic diversity. It should incorporate all aspects of the human being and our society in general, and we should be very proud of it.

As I have indicated, I truly believe in Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms and how important our standing in the world is regarding the degree to which we recognize the importance of freedom. I am therefore encouraged to see this legislation. What I found really encouraging yesterday, in listening to discussions on the issues of conversion therapy, is that it seems everyone inside the House opposes it and sees the type of harm it causes in society. A number of members have raised issues and wanted some clarification, but on principle, the House appears to be unanimous in its thinking regarding the dangers of conversion therapy. I hope we will see unanimous support for this legislation, because I believe it is worth being supported by all members of this chamber.

I will be specific with what the legislation would criminalize. We should all note this. It would criminalize causing a person under the age of 18, a minor, to undergo conversion therapy; removing a minor from Canada to undergo conversion therapy abroad; causing a person to undergo conversion therapy against their will; receiving financial or other material benefits from the provision of conversion therapy; and advertising an offer to provide conversion therapy. The essence of what this bill would do is protect minors from conversion therapy regardless of whether it is provided within or outside of Canada, protect adults who are vulnerable to being forced to undergo conversion therapy and protect Canadians from the commercialization of conversion therapy.

I see this as a positive step forward, and I want to reflect on some of the comments I made yesterday, and already this morning, on the degree to which things have changed.

I can recall my school days quite vividly, and I had no sense of what “gay” was. It was not even talked about in school. I had no sense, in terms of any type of behaviour, of what was being perceived or pushed on from the norms of society. It was not until the latter years of high school I started to get a sense there was a part of life that I was not privy to, or that was frowned upon.

When I went into the Canadian Forces, I really started to see discrimination against people who were gay, and the negative impacts of being gay. I suspect I do not need to cite specific examples for people to understand some of the things I am implying with that statement.

Once I entered the political realm in the mid-eighties, things were taking place that were actually fairly encouraging. For example, the Pride parade in Winnipeg was established in 1987. It was not meant to be a Pride parade, per se, but it was a gathering of people with respect to an action from the Manitoba legislature. The action would have included sexual orientation as part of the Manitoba Human Rights Code. Hundreds of people were gathering, either to protest the fact that it did not pass or to celebrate the fact it did pass. It turned into a parade. That was really significant back in the eighties.

Fast-forwarding 25 years, it is really encouraging to look at the Manitoba legislature. Located in downtown Winnipeg in a beautiful building, the chamber, with its horseshoe shape, is one of the finest debating chambers in Canada and possibly even North America. Huge Roman heritage pillars are at the very front of the building. It has a beautiful lawn. About 25 years after that first Pride parade, we saw a celebration and the different colours of the rainbow shining up the pillars. We recognized just how far we have come. It was part of a week of Pride celebrations.

We need to think of the impact that has on our community. It is very difficult for us to comprehend the pressures people are under when hiding their feelings. Because of my upbringing, it is very hard for someone like me to imagine that. I can only attempt to understand the difficulty of young people, in particular, dealing with a very difficult situation in their school, home or work lives. The least I can do is to encourage that freedom where I can. Bill C-6 is a good example. It sends a positive message, but the work is not done. We can still do so much more.

The other thing I am very proud of is the fact that Glen Murray was the first openly gay mayor of a major urban centre in Canada: my home city of Winnipeg.

I thank Glen Murray and Randy Boissonnault from the Liberal caucus, both people I have known over the years who have been such strong advocates, and my daughter to a certain degree, for making sure I am sensitive and have a better, more comprehensive understanding of an issue that is important to all of us.

The House resumed from October 26 consideration of the motion that Bill C-6, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (conversion therapy), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, in a particular sense, Bill C-6 is about people, about the trauma people have experienced but also about the ways they have overcome that trauma. Before I get into some of the arguments around the provisions of this bill, if members could indulge me for a minute, I want to engage in that human side of the conversation, as well, with stories of particular LGBTQ people whose struggles and victories have shaped our collective history and whom I personally deeply admire. Unlike some of the speeches, the people I am going to talk about are not friends of mine. In fact, they are heroes of mine. They are people whose courage and wisdom informed their public service and shaped the 20th century.

Just over 100 years ago, the greatest leaders from virtually every country in the world came to Paris for the making of the peace to end all war, what would become the Versailles settlement. This was a critical crossover in time. The transition from an era of Pax Britannica, European colonial expansion and the economic gilded age, into a new era in which post-revolutionary powers would dominate global affairs through heightened ideological conflict and an era in which the demands of nations that had been suppressed for hundreds or even thousands of years would re-emerge.

This moment in history has rightly captured the imagination of many, especially because discussions in Paris contained the spark of many of the great innovative ideas of the 20th century. Still, like the spark of so many things, the Versailles settlement got wrong more than it got right. It failed to deliver functioning international institutions, an effective global economic system or a durable peace.

In the midst of this generally failed exercise, there were two very notable British Cassandras, men who got things right in their areas of speciality at a time when those who actually held the levers of power were getting it wrong. These two men were T.E. Lawrence, better known as Lawrence of Arabia, and John Maynard Keynes.

Lawrence wanted the British to keep the promises they had made to their Arab allies for the creation of a great, new, independent Arab state under Hashemite control. The Hashemite leaders already had come to a general understanding with Zionist authorities, which could have led to early peace and understanding between Arabs and Jews. Instead, the powers at Versailles opted to generally divide the Middle East into British and French control. Many of the tragic events in the Middle East that followed could have been avoided if Lawrence had had his way.

Keynes' area of focus was economics, not the Middle East. While in Paris, he advanced the critical importance of establishing the conditions for trade integration and shared economic prosperity in Europe if the settlement was to lead to a durable peace. He fought back against those who wanted, in his words, a Carthaginian peace. Despite his efforts, louder voices in Europe calling for punishing reparations to be paid by all belligerent powers and American assistance on the honouring of war debts created the conditions of economic vulnerability that allowed fascism to emerge. Keynes directly foresaw how economically punishing terms would lead to the rise of authoritarianism.

In Paris in 1919, Lawrence and Keynes were, in different ways, dramatically bucking the tendencies of their time. It is interesting then to wonder what characteristics set Lawrence and Keynes apart? What factors shaped these brilliant men and gave them the awareness, as well as the intellectual and practical courage, to challenge the currents of that moment. Although applying the term after the fact is a bit anachronistic, Lawrence and Keynes both almost certainly had sexual orientations that were either the G, the B or the Q in LGBTQ.

There was no proof of it in the case of Lawrence, but there is plenty in his writings to imply it. The first chapter of his famous book, Seven Pillars of Wisdom, for example, alludes to non-heterosexual sexual practices that he saw as arising naturally from the circumstances of the Arab campaign. The opening dedication of Seven Pillars of Wisdom was written to “S.A.”, a likely reference to a young man named Selim Ahmed, who was close to Lawrence and who died during the campaign.

The dedication reads:

I loved you, so I drew these tides of men into my hands
and wrote my will across the sky in stars
To earn you Freedom, the seven-pillared worthy house,
that your eyes might be shining for me
When we came.
Death seemed my servant on the road, till we were near
and saw you waiting:
When you smiled, and in sorrowful envy he outran me
and took you apart:
Into his quietness.
Love, the way-weary, groped to your body, our brief wage
ours for the moment
Before earth's soft hand explored your shape, and the blind
worms grew fat upon
Your substance.
Men prayed me that I set our work, the inviolate house,
as a memory of you.
But for fit monument I shattered it, unfinished: and now
The little things creep out to patch themselves hovels
in the marred shadow
Of your gift.

Early on, Keynes was generally known to be gay by his close friends, known as the Bloomsbury Group, who expressed various forms of sexuality that were unconventional at the time. Much more is known about Keynes's sexuality than Lawrence's. While Lawrence couched his references to it in the subtlety and poetry that characterized his writing, Keynes catalogued his encounters with economic efficiency, but Keynes eventually surprised his friends, and probably himself, by falling madly in love with a woman. She was a famous Russian dancer who was actually married at the time, so Keynes was still bucking conventional orthodoxy, just not in the ways that his friends expected.

During the same era, many gay and lesbian people were not given the same opportunity as Lawrence and Keynes to serve their countries in important roles or, if they had been, they were removed from those roles once information came out about them. People were driven out of public service following intrusions into their private lives. It is indeed a great injustice that people were so denied the opportunity to serve their countries, and it was also a great loss to their communities. As Lawrence and Keynes demonstrate, sexuality is but a small part of the whole picture of what makes a person who they are. Imagine how much further behind we would be today if we had been deprived of the public service of Lawrence and Keynes, and imagine how much further ahead we would be if the public service of other LGBTQ2+ individuals had not been cut short by those who sought to reduce their identities to only one aspect and unjustly excluded them on that basis.

In the early part of the 20th century as well, we saw the emergence of something called conversion therapy: a particular set of dehumanizing practices that sought to rewire people's brains to make them straight. These practices sought to associate pain, violence and degradation with homosexuality and create positive associations around heterosexuality. Conversion therapy involved the use of pornography and heterosexual prostitution as well as shame and violence. These methods have been thoroughly debunked as to whether they lead to any change in sexual identity. Even more importantly, these practices are contrary to human dignity.

It is worth underlining that point about human dignity, because the idea of dignity is used in various debates in the House, often with little precise definition. There is this idea, critical to our modern concepts of human rights, that human beings have intrinsic value, not based on what they do or what they feel, but based on the fact that they are human. Dignity is essential to all human beings, and is a characteristic that denotes intrinsic worth and value. It is always present in human beings, by virtue of who and what they are, but social structures or other individuals may still falsely deny or ignore a person's dignity, or suggest it is contingent on some characteristic or circumstance. We must always firmly assert the immutability of human dignity: the fact that dignity ought not to be denied, even by the person themselves, and that subjecting people to violent or degrading treatment because of their sexuality is necessarily a violation of that dignity.

The practice of conversion therapy has been largely discredited, but for greater certainty and to give assurance to those who have been its victims in the past, I fully support efforts to ban conversion therapy. I hope to have an opportunity to support a bill that does that. I want to get to a yes on this. In fact, I think we can get to more than a yes for me: I think we can get to unanimity in the House, if we have a clear definition, because I do not believe there is any member here who wants to see the kind of violent practices that have been associated with conversion therapy for far too long.

As the lives of Lawrence and Keynes demonstrate, human sexuality is complex. It seems that, for some people, sexual expression varies over the course of their lives, with certain expressions predominating at different times. Others have fixed inclinations that do not change. For most, sexual activity changes under different circumstances, such as changing relationships. Any person, of any orientation, living out their sexuality obviously takes into consideration different aspects of their identity. The great writer and Catholic priest Henri Nouwen, for example, identified feelings of same-sex attraction and also sought to live out the commitment to celibacy that all Catholic clergy make. Nouwen's writings about his journey are both beautiful and haunting, illuminating a life rich in meaning and challenged by loneliness. Nouwen lived out a personal choice. All of us make personal choices that reflect personal decisions about how to reconcile competing desires, competing aspects of identity and competing concepts of what constitutes “the good life.”

So, while supporting efforts to ban conversion therapy, I am concerned that Bill C-6 misdefines the term. The definition is, of course, central to the matter. If we say we are banning conversion therapy, but in the process define conversion therapy as including things that are not conversion therapy, then we will end up banning things that are not conversion therapy. Good intentions here are not enough.

We hear members speaking about what this bill seeks to do, but it is also important that the bill does the things that it seeks to do and does not do things that it does not seek to do. This is where we have to engage with the substance and the details. Bill C-6 defines 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.

This definition goes significantly outside of the practices referred to earlier, which seek to use pain, violence and degradation to force a change in sexual feelings. Such therapies are ineffective and repugnant, as mentioned, but this bill would heavily restrict all efforts for a person to reduce their sexual attraction or sexual behaviour or any conversations or interactions that seem to have the effect of changing a person's feelings of sexual attraction or behaviour.

If a parent tells their teenage son or daughter that he or she cannot have sex until they reach a certain age or until he or she moves out, that would amount to an attempt to reduce sexual attraction or behaviour. If an Orthodox rabbi, in good faith and with good intentions, simply shares his beliefs with respect to sexual activity, that would also be a case of encouraging self-imposed limits on sexual behaviour. If a group of LGBTQ evangelical Christians meet together to study and explore how to live out their faith, and they debate and discuss strategies for limiting or redirecting sexual feelings, those private conversations would certainly come under scrutiny if Bill C-6 is passed unamended. What about a young transgender person who wishes to preserve a relationship with his grandparents even though they tell him that they think his identity is just a phase?

Whatever we think of such interactions or conversations, surely they are not a place for law enforcement intervention. We are talking, yes, about conversations where people might encourage particular identification or sexual behaviour. However, they are conversations, not therapies, in which everyday people with goodwill simply are expressing their opinions with the best of intentions for family or friends. They are cases where people of like mind gather together in an attempt to support each other, or where people voluntarily seek counselling or support to live their lives as they choose.

It is not unusual for people to seek to reduce sexual attraction or behaviour. If a person is in a committed relationship and is compulsively cheating on their partner, I suspect that any counsellor or physician would discuss with them strategies for reducing sexual attraction or behaviour. In my consultations around this bill, I spoke to a father in a heterosexual marriage who had started to experience same-sex attraction. He chose not to act on those attractions and instead chose to preserve his marriage. I do not think anyone should force him to make that choice, but I do think he has a right to make that choice and to seek counselling and support in order to help him do that.

In general, I suspect that most parents and mentors encourage in young people some constraints on sexual behaviour or expression, and that applies whether those young people are straight or gay. Dan Savage, a leading American author and founder of the It Gets Better Project, made the following observation about parenting LGBTQ young people. He said, “The trap that people who have gay kids fall into is that they feel that they can't hold their gay kids to the same standards that they hold their straight kids to, that they will be perceived as homophobic if they don't let their gay child run off and do things that they won't let their straight kids do. But equality is what we're after. If your straight kids are not allowed to have their boyfriend or girlfriend stay the night, he's not allowed to have his boyfriend stay the night.”

By making efforts to reduce non-heterosexual attraction or behaviour criminal, this law as written forces a legal inequality into the home, where parents would be perfectly within their rights to require constraints on sexual behaviour for a straight son but not for a gay son. I do not think that makes sense. I do not think constraining the ability of parents to make house rules about sexual behaviour and applying them equally has anything to do with conversion therapy if properly defined. We are not just talking about the freedom of religious conservatives, the sexually unconventional people of our day. We are talking about any private conversations in which people might recommend limits to sexual attraction or behaviour for any reason, inserting the long arm of the law into those conversations.

I am not a regular reader of the Toronto Star, but in researching this speech I took a look at the relationship advice section, Ask Ellie. Perhaps unsurprisingly, it contains plenty of entries where strategies are suggested for reducing sexual attraction or behaviour. For example, last week, a woman whose husband was on a dating app, was affirmed for informing the people he was corresponding with that he was already married, and it was suggested that the woman tell her husband to stop spending time on the dating app and instead to seek a counsellor.

This kind of advice from the Toronto Star clearly does not constitute conversion therapy, properly defined, but it does involve an effort to reduce sexual attraction or behaviour and advice to see a counsellor, who would presumably encourage the husband in question not to cheat on his wife. This would constitute an effort to reduce or modify sexual behaviour.

I do not really think the intention of the legislation was to go after Ask Ellie, but it does underline the technical and drafting problems with the legislation as it is currently written. Parenthetically, it is a bit ironic that some of the same people who want to defund the police and replace it with social workers are now interested in having police intervene to ensure that conversations about sexually fit into defined parameters.

This odd and flawed definition goes a long way to limit what are likely often loving and sincere conversations people might have with parents, counsellors, friends and other authority figures about sexual identity and behaviour. Under the current definition as written, I wonder if John Maynard Keynes's friend would have had a case to bring against his wife for seeming to be the catalyst for his dramatic change in sexual expression. The circumstances are such that there may well have been a case, indeed.

The fact is that sexuality is complicated and the culmination of ways in which free people construct their identities, taking into consideration upbringing, culture, faith and sexuality, are often even more complicated. Therefore, let us ban coercion, violence and bullying and then let us allow free people to have conversations about how they want to identify and live. Our mistake at the beginning of the 20th century was, in a world of complex sexuality and identity, to try to prescribe legal limits to what people could think, say or do. Let us not go down a similar road with a ban that, in reality, goes far beyond conversion therapy.

I have spoken about ambiguities in the current definition. There are big questions about how the legislation would apply in certain cases. The initial definition is followed by a proviso that, for greater certainty, this definition does not include a practice, treatment or service that relates to a person's gender transition or a person's exploration of his or her identity or to its development. It is not at all clear what that proviso means, but it certainty provides no protection specifically for conversations or for parents, counsellors or religious leaders who want to provide guidance in terms of sexual behaviour to their congregations or those seeking that guidance.

With these gaps and ambiguities, the legislation, as written, would no doubt spawn a litany of legal challenges. Again, when we define something as being conversion therapy which is not in fact conversion therapy, then I think we have to be honest about it and honestly debate what we are trying to do. As written, this is not a bill that bans conversion therapy. Rather, it bans the expression of any opinion, in public or private, that suggests individuals should, in certain situations, exercise voluntary control and limits on their sexual feelings or behaviour. It is a far more expansive effort to constrain the thoughts and discussions that free people are able to have.

Efforts to ban conversion therapy are right and justified, but the bill, as written, is a trick, calling things conversion therapy that are not in fact conversion therapy. It is a trick which exploits the real suffering of some LGBTQ individuals and seeks to use them for political purposes and in so doing, limit their rights to have open conversations about their sexual feelings. The bill is the wrong response to a real issue. Let us have a better bill, a bill that is clearly drafted and that actually bans conversion therapy, no more and no less.

I recommend that the bill be amended to remove the current definition of “conversion therapy” and replace it with a definition that recognizes conversion therapy as a professional service that seeks to compel a change to a person's sexual orientation through degrading or violent means. This is, after all, what conversion therapy is, so let us ban conversion therapy. Let us fix the definition and move forward with this ban right away.

Some members think that these concerns are unjustified, that they are a red herring. Let us kill the red herring and then proceed in a united fashion by amending the bill.

I fear that I may have angered some of my political base with too many favourable references to John Maynard Keynes. I certainly do not endorse all his economic conclusions or the ways in which his ideas have been misused at certain times in history. I will now therefore now seek to mollify any potential critics with a favourable reference to Friedrich Hayek.

Hayek, who also argued for the repeal of laws restricting homosexual behaviour, noted that in economics, “knowledge of the circumstances of which we must make use never exists in concentrated or integrated form but solely as the dispersed bits of incomplete and frequently contradictory knowledge which all the separate individuals possess.” Like Hayek, I think individuals, and not paternalistic governments, should be allowed to make their own decisions about their own lives as much as possible.

Our goal should be to protect the ability of free people to seek, understand and integrate their identities, not to prescribe a hierarchy of identities. Therefore, let us ban conversion therapy and ensure we define it correctly.

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

Mr. Speaker, Colette, a young woman in Lethbridge, Alberta, reached out. She is a young teenager, an ordinary girl from a traditional home. Her life was turned upside-down when she was gang-raped and became addicted to hard-core porn. She has said in testimony, “Being a traditional kind of girl, I rejected the bisexual feelings and non-heterosexual behaviours that my brain suggested I ought to act on.”

Since the incident, however, she suffered from sex addiction. One day, Colette made the decision to go find therapy at her local university to help reduce the feelings she was experiencing after the trauma and porn use. She said that this counselling, along with a sex addiction support group that she attended, saved her life as suicidal thoughts and despair began to affect her deeply.

What would a bill like Bill C-6 do to support the systems Colette had sought out and would the member opposite be willing to ensure that the bill is far more clear as to what is being covered? Many legal minds have been suggesting that the bill is just not clear enough—