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

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak today to Bill C-219, and I would like to thank the member for Perth—Wellington for bringing forward the bill. While I have great respect for the member, I cannot bring myself to support his bill. I say this knowing full well of his noble intentions to protect some of the most vulnerable in our society.

Bill C-219 is yet another Conservative amendment to the Criminal Code that seeks to bring in mandatory minimum sentences. In this case, the amendments are to the sections dealing with offences for sexual exploitation, against both young persons and persons with disabilities. The bill would add the fact that the victim is a person with a disability as an aggravating circumstance for the purpose of sentencing when someone is found guilty of purchasing sexual services from a person under 18 years of age.

In the 41st Parliament, the NDP opposed the whole section of the Criminal Code that was criminalizing sex work because, of course, we know full well that this is forcing it even deeper into the shadows. Unfortunately, the bill we have before us today is attempting to grandstand on the backs of victims. I use that word because the bill would do nothing to prevent these crimes, nor would it reduce their severity.

Too often in this place, we let overheated rhetoric and the stoking of people's fears replace good policy. This is especially the case when dealing with criminal law. As legislators, we cannot let the desire for revenge substitute against what all of the evidence shows us. I am speaking as a parent of three young children, so I understand the emotional gut punch of these crimes. They are vile and they are of a nature that makes us recoil in horror, but I have to detach myself from those emotional feelings. I am not a judge. I am not the person looking at the circumstances of the case, and that is where I have to draw the line, the separation between the legislative branch of government and the judicial branch of government.

New Democrats are opposed to mandatory minimums because they are an ineffective tool against crime. They do not deter perpetrators from committing crimes. We believe that discretion on sentencing should be left in the hands of judges. Alternative sentences or diversion programs almost always have better results in terms of rehabilitating perpetrators and, thus, preventing future crimes.

Mandatory minimums prevent judges from using these alternative sentences and diversion programs. Mandatory minimums remove the decision-making power from judges, and mandatory minimums deprive the court of the nuance it needs to bring in its decision-making. Unfortunately, the Conservative approach is to have the exact same minimum punishment for every conviction, regardless of the circumstances of the case.

They can also have the effect of clogging up our court system, because there may be accused innocent persons who are most likely to take a plea deal in order to avoid mandatory minimum sentencing if they feel that there is not strong enough evidence to acquit them even though they are quite sure of their innocence, while those who are guilty may not have any incentive to plead guilty, because they know there is going to be a mandatory minimum in place. We already have a judicial system that is bursting at the seams with so many court cases that have been backlogged, and this has been exacerbated by COVID-19. I certainly do not want to add to our already over-burdened court system.

[T]he evidence is clear: [mandatory minimums] are an ineffective and [in fact] dangerous justice tool. They do not deter crime. They do not increase public safety. They disproportionately affect Indigenous and other racialized Canadians. And they are incredibly expensive.

But we have known that for decades.

In 1984, the Canadian Sentencing Commission concluded that [mandatory minimums] create injustice without accomplishing any of the other functions ascribed to them.

In 2005, a Department of Justice...report found evidence that “minimum sentences are not an effective sentencing tool: that is, they constrain judicial discretion without offering any increased crime prevention benefits.”

For the next part of my speech, I will move on to a very important and already existing section of the Criminal Code. It is very important for us to realize, in the context of today's debate, and in any reform of the Criminal Code, that there are already detailed sentencing principles that a judge must apply in their consideration of the appropriate punishment.

For example, under section 718.01, any time there is an offence against children, the court, when imposing a sentence, has to give primary consideration to the objectives of denunciation and deterrence of such conduct. Under the existing section 718.04, when it comes to an offence against a vulnerable person, the court has to give primary consideration to the objectives of denunciation and deterrence. Also, a fundamental principle that is outlined under section 718.1 is that a sentence must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the responsibility of the offender.

Of course, the section that has often been quoted in these types of debates pertains to the other sentencing principles as outlined under the existing section 718.2, which, for the purposes of debating Bill C-219, I should mention specifically reference whether the offender, in committing an offence, abused a person under the age of 18 years; whether the offender, in committing the offence, abused a position of trust or authority in relation to the victim; and, also, evidence that the offence had a significant impact on the victim, considering their age and other personal circumstances, including their health.

All of these specific references, which are already in the Criminal Code, give judges incredible leeway to apply the appropriate punishment for the appropriate crime.

I know that these crimes illicit a very strong, emotional response. However, it is important for us to remember that the Criminal Code, at the end of the day, is not a proactive piece of legislation. It is is very often a reactive piece of legislation. It comes into effect after the fact, after the crime has been committed. Our ultimate goal is to try and engage in preventative measures and, of course, to make sure that we do have those supports in place for the victims.

I do thank the member for Perth—Wellington for bringing forward the bill for debate and, again, I know that it is coming from a good place and has very noble intentions. However, in conclusion, my NDP colleagues and I support doing what is most effective to prevent crime and that also offers the best outcomes for the victims of crime.

[Jag Sahota, Conservative, Calgary Skyview, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak in support of my colleague from Perth—Wellington's private member's bill, Bill C-219, an act to amend the Criminal Code, sexual exploitation.

The purpose of this bill is to increase the maximum and minimum sentences for individuals found guilty of sexually exploiting vulnerable individuals, such as children and those with mental disabilities, under the Criminal Code. The reason that this bill is needed is so disheartening.

A Stratford man who worked for a social service agency and performed as a clown was convicted of obtaining sexual services for consideration involving a 25-year-old mentally disabled woman. The punishment for his crime was just two years of probation and a $2,000 fine. This man preyed on this woman, took advantage of her and was let off the hook with a slap on the wrist. Sadly, this is not an isolated incident.

In 2016, a Nova Scotian police chief was found guilty of sexually exploiting a teenage girl. A police chief, a person who we are taught to trust and go to for safety, abused his position and exploited a vulnerable individual. His only punishment was 15 months in jail. This is so disturbing.

As the shadow minister for women and gender equality, I have the opportunity to sit on the status of women committee. Recently, we tabled our report on the impacts of COVID-19 on women. One of the things that we learned about the devastating impacts of COVID and the consequences of the lockdowns was that women's shelters saw a significant decrease in the number of calls they were receiving from women.

Normally, a reduction in calls would be a good thing, but what we know is that during times of crisis, violence toward women actually increases. This meant that women were trapped at their homes with their abusers with no help. They were basically living in their own type of prison.

Women were not the only ones who saw an increase in violence directed at them. Cybertip.ca reported that, with children doing school remotely and spending more time on their computers, tablets and phones, it saw an 81% increase in the number of reports from youth who had been sexually exploited and reports of people trying to sexually abuse children.

The National Child Exploitation Crime Centre also reported that at the onset of the pandemic it saw offenders on livestreaming sites, social media and on the dark web looking for children to chat with online or to meet in person so they could sexually assault them.

It is hard to believe that in a country such as Canada, people who like to prey on these vulnerable individuals exist. We owe it to our children and to those most vulnerable to ensure that those who would prey on them for their own sexual pleasure are met with some of the toughest punishments.

This is why I fully support my colleague's private member's bill to bring in mandatory minimums on these criminals and strongly urge all members of this House to support it.

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

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to rise to join second reading of Bill C-219, an act to amend the Criminal Code, sexual exploitation, which was introduced on February 25, 2020, by the member for Perth—Wellington.

At the outset, I would like to acknowledge the bill's important objectives to better protect young people and persons with disabilities from sexual exploitation and to ensure the appropriate sentencing for anyone who commits a serious sexual crime against them.

The available data shows we must remain vigilant in ensuring children and people living with disabilities are protected from sexual violence. We know young persons aged 15 to 24 have the highest rate of sexual assault. This comes from JustFacts Sexual Assault, May 2017.

According to the 2014 General Social Survey on victimization, Canadians with disabilities were almost twice as likely to be victims of violent crime than Canadians who did not have a disability. That survey also indicates the proportion of women with mental health-related disabilities who reported being a victim of sexual assault was over three times higher than that of their counterparts with no such condition.

This bill proposes a number of sentencing reforms that would apply to three sexual offences: sexual exploitation, section 153; sexual exploitation of a person with disability, section 153.1; and purchasing sexual services, section 286.1. These reforms involve increasing and imposing new mandatory minimum penalties of imprisonment on sexual exploitation offences.

I have just noted increasing the maximum penalty for sexual exploitation of persons with disability and a new aggravating factor that would apply where sexual services are purchased from a person living with a disability. I propose to situate these reforms in the broader criminal framework governing sexual offending, which is recognized as one of the most comprehensive in the world.

The Criminal Code includes child-specific sexual offences as well as sexual offences of general application that criminalize a broad range of conduct. These offences protect children from all forms of sexual conduct with adults. For example, offences prohibiting sexual interference in section 151 and invitation to sexual touching in section 152 protect children under the ages of 16.

Once it is established that sexual conduct occurred and that the accused knew the victim was under the age of 16 or failed to take responsible steps to ascertain that age when the circumstances required it, the offence has been committed. It does not matter whether the young person consented.

The Criminal Code sexual exploitation offence, section 153, which this bill proposes to amend, protects 16-year-old and 17-year-old youth from sexual conduct with adults where there is a relationship of trust, authority or dependency between the adult and the young person or the relationship is otherwise exploitative of the young person.

Courts may infer a relationship is exploitative of a young person from the nature of the circumstances of the relationship, including the age difference between the accused and the young person, the evolution of the relationship and the degree of control or influence by the accused over the young person. That is subsection 153(1.2).

I have two minutes remaining and perhaps I will get to finish when this comes back again.

In offences committed where it is established the sexual conduct occurred in the context of one of the relationships and the accused knew that the victim was 16 or 17 or failed to take reasonable steps to ascertain that age when the circumstances required it, again it does not matter whether the young person consented.

These are all serious offences with maximum penalties of 14 years' imprisonment on indictment and the MMPs of one year on indictment and 90 days on summary conviction. Furthermore, the sexual assault offences, section 271 to 273, that protect all Canadians also protect children. Sexual assault captures the full range of sexual contact, from kissing to intercourse. Where the victim is under the age of 16, this offence carries the same penalties as child-specific sexual offences. The sexual assault provisions also protect all Canadians, including those living with disabilities.

When the victim is 16 years old or older, sexual assault involves sexual touching without consent of the person being touched. In recognition of the fact that sexual assault victims are often vulnerable and have a very difficult time coming forward, the sexual assault provisions contain special rules and procedures that are designed to protect victims. For example, subsection 273.1(1) of the Criminal Code “defines consent as the voluntary agreement of the complainant to engage in the sexual activity in question.” This means that consent must be expressed actively through words or conduct. Anything short of that does not constitute consent.

The Criminal Code also specifies that consent is not obtained as a matter of law in a number of different—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

The hon. member will have four minutes to finish the next time the bill comes to the floor.

It being 2:30 p.m., the House stands adjourned until Monday at 11 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 2:30 p.m.)

The House resumed from April 16 consideration of the motion that Bill C-6, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (conversion therapy), be read the third time and passed.

[Kerry-Lynne Findlay, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock, BC]

Madam Speaker, I thank the House for this opportunity to continue my remarks on Bill C-6.

I am a member of the justice committee, where many witnesses stated that we need to clarify the definition of conversion therapy in this bill. We heard over and over from lawyers that the definition is overbroad and imprecise and the bill lacks clarity, and from faith leaders like Cardinal Collins, who is a spiritual leader to two million Canadians, that it goes beyond the stated goal of banning coercive therapies. Other witnesses testified that good-faith conversations from caring counsellors literally saved their lives and helped them sort themselves out with support, time and no presupposed or preferred outcomes.

Given all the testimony we heard, much of which I referenced when I spoke previously, why not clarify the language of the bill? Why not specify that good-faith, non-coercive conversations would not be subject to criminal penalty? Why not? It is because the current Minister of Justice claims it would be redundant to do so. Redundant? Really? When is clarity so fervently called for by so many witnesses ever redundant? Why not give the comfort sought if it is implied, as the minister has suggested? The simplest answer is often the right one. The minister and the Liberal government do not want to give that comfort, do not want to give that protection.

This bill calls for criminal sanctions that could land Canadians in jail for five years. It is our duty as parliamentarians to draft precise legislation for judges and for all Canadians. Criminal law should have the highest threshold against confusion and ambiguity.

One of my daughters is a school counsellor. I want to ensure that she and the thousands of other hard-working counsellors across this country can continue to have safe conversations with students without violating the law.

It is an easy fix. Conservatives put forth a simple amendment to add a “for greater certainty” clause to the definition of conversion therapy. Our amendment mirrored the wording on the Department of Justice's own website so that teachers, school counsellors, pastoral counsellors, faith leaders, doctors, mental health professionals and friends and family could provide support, without fear of criminal sanction, to persons who seek their counsel and who are struggling with their sexual orientation, sexual feelings or gender expression and identity.

An explanation given by a Liberal member at committee was that the list in our amendment stating “such as...teachers, school counsellors”, etc. offends the principle and statutory interpretation that the inclusion of some means the exclusion of others. As a former trial lawyer and administrative law judge, I can say that lists were always helpful to me in interpreting and applying the law. As for the canon of construction expressio unius est exclusio alterius, it simply does not apply where a list includes a prefix like “such as”. “Such as” means that the list is not exhaustive.

This is pretty basic stuff. Why does the Liberal government not stand by its own justice website? Why did it change its wording? This is the Liberals playing “gotcha” politics with real lives and real struggles, again, trying to force members to vote against this bill because of its lack of precision to later falsely claim that those who voted against it are therefore in favour of coercive conversion therapy. It is intentionally insulting and beneath the dignity of this House. By erasing all confusion, our amendment would have erased all doubt and garnered widespread support.

One last concern is that as of the final justice committee meeting before clause-by-clause consideration back in December, members were told that 260 written submissions were still being translated, and they were not available until after we voted on amendments. To ignore them is disrespectful and runs counter to our democratic values. It may have altered the very outcome of our clause-by-clause deliberations.

It is my hope that having digested these briefs in the intervening months, we, on both sides of the aisle, will recognize the importance of condemning harmful practices in a clear and targeted way. Let us reduce suffering and provide acknowledgement by banning coercive conversion therapy, but not increase suffering by ignoring so many briefs and witnesses.

We should love and look out for all Canadians: no Canadian left behind. I challenge the government to clarify the language in this bill, or at least be honest with Canadians about the intent behind it. Let us leave out hurtful and unnecessary politicization and welcome inclusion.

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

Madam Speaker, while I normally have a good relationship with the member for South Surrey—White Rock, I am disappointed with her remarks today.

I want to draw her attention to the “for greater certainty” clause that was added to the definition in proposed section 320.101. It states, “For greater certainty, this definition does not include a practice, treatment or service that relates to the exploration and development of an integrated personal identity without favouring any particular sexual orientation, gender identity or gender expression.”

How is this a vague definition that would somehow prevent counsellors from talking to kids about sexual orientation and sexual identity? It simply says that providing a supportive and affirming conversation is not covered by this bill.

[Kerry-Lynne Findlay, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock, BC]

Madam Speaker, I have a lot respect for my colleague. We have worked on many files together.

I want to be clear that I am against the practice of coercive therapies or conversion therapy. I do not agree with it. The member and I are both on the justice committee. Most of the witnesses, and it did not matter where they were from, were against that practice. What they wanted was real clarity, not an overly broad or imprecise definition, on what this means exactly, and they did not feel it was in this bill. Witness after witness, whether they be people who have explored this or lawyers studying the legislation, called for greater certainty, and that is what Conservatives are calling for, including the definition as set out on the justice website and in our amendment.

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

Madam Speaker, I will be honest. When I hear Conservatives say they are against conversion therapy but the definition is vague, that rings hollow. All that suggests is that they are trying to cover up. They say they are against it but the definition needs to be stronger. They are basically saying they are against a different version of what they believe conversion therapy to be, not what survivors have been saying it actually is.

The member did not answer the previous question. The member for Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke specifically asked why the member for South Surrey—White Rock considers the definition he read out vague when he went into detail describing the definition in the bill. Can she answer his question?

[Kerry-Lynne Findlay, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock, BC]

Madam Speaker, I would first like to say that I find the way that question was put deeply insulting and unnecessary in parliamentary debate, which is something we often see from the member. This is not the time to play these kinds of games. These are people's lives. People are suffering. I am on the justice committee, and I listened to the witnesses; the member did not.

When listening to the testimonies, we at committee heard real suffering, but it was suffering by more than one category of person. We heard suffering from people who had undergone coercive therapies that they felt had hurt them deeply, perhaps for life, but we also heard from witnesses who said that good-faith conversations by counsellors or faith leaders had actually saved their lives. One has to have some balance when looking at any piece of legislation in this House.

[Julie Vignola, Bloc, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Madam Speaker, whenever I hear anything about conversion therapy, I find it really upsetting, because sexual orientation is not a choice people make. I did not choose to be heterosexual any more than homosexual individuals chose their orientation. That is how we were born, it is in our genetic makeup; we got it from our parents.

If someone is struggling, it is only natural they seek psychological support, but do people really want a conversion? Do they really want to change their genetic makeup? How is this possible without psychological consequences, without anxiety and depression?

[Kerry-Lynne Findlay, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am not sure there was a question. I was very clear that I am against coercive conversion therapy. I have said that from the very beginning. I am just looking for greater clarity in the bill. To suggest that I am for this practice is erroneous.

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to have a speech in front of me this morning, because, like my colleague, I am very emotional and find this topic very upsetting.

I am pleased to rise today at third reading stage to speak to Bill C-6, which amends the Criminal Code with regard to conversion therapy. I think that there needs to be a consensus on this bill to give LGBTQ+ people the respect and protection they deserve. Equality for all is a fundamental value in Quebec, and I hope it is in the rest of the country as well. It is an inalienable right.

Practices that deny the existence of a person's core identity must be condemned. It is 2021. Historically, Quebec has been a leader in human rights protection. The Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms has recognized sexual orientation as a prohibited ground of discrimination since 1977, and the PQ justice minister got the National Assembly of Quebec to legalize same-sex marriage in 2002, when it instituted civil unions.

The bill that we are debating today proposes to amend sections of the Criminal Code in order to create offences related to the practice of conversion therapy. The term “practice” is very important here. This bill is identical to Bill C-8, which was introduced in March 2020 and died on the Order Paper when Parliament was prorogued. I hope that Bill C-6 will be passed by all members of the House in this 43rd Parliament, because we cannot afford to waste any more time.

What is conversion therapy? It is a practice, treatment or service designed to change a person's sexual orientation to heterosexual or their gender identity to cisgender, or to repress or reduce non-heterosexual attraction or any behaviour deemed abnormal. That is appalling.

I want every member to put themselves in the shoes of a vulnerable person, if only for a few moments, and imagine just how much this can violate their identity and how much distress it can cause. I find it inconceivable that this type of treatment is still being used today in an attempt to please parents or any organization and obtain their approval. For goodness' sake.

In Quebec, respect for each person's gender identity and sexual orientation is a value that the practice of conversion therapy violates. In our society that is so inclusive and respectful of human rights, or so I hope, who are we to judge what is good for a person and to try to convince them to be otherwise?

As experts are saying, conversion therapy is pseudoscience. Not only is it dangerous and degrading, but, as many studies have shown, it does not work. According to the World Health Organization, conversion therapy practices “represent a serious threat to the health and well-being of affected people”. According to the Canadian Psychological Association, “[c]onversion or reparative therapy can result in negative outcomes such as distress, anxiety, depression, negative self-image, a feeling of personal failure, difficulty sustaining relationships, and sexual dysfunction”. That is very serious.

Conversion therapy has already been banned in five Canadian provinces and one territory: Manitoba, Ontario, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, Quebec and Yukon. The cities of Vancouver, Edmonton and Calgary have banned it as well. Around the world, Albania, Brazil, Ecuador, Fiji, Germany, Malta, Switzerland and Taiwan have all banned this type of therapy, as have more than 20 states and 80 cities in the U.S. Conversion therapy does, sadly, happen in Canada, but it is done behind closed doors. When I tell my constituents, they are surprised to hear that this practice still exists. We must speak out against these types of therapy and take action.

I would like to talk about the high-profile case of Gabriel Nadeau.

Gabriel was a member of a Pentecostal Protestant community and underwent conversion therapy three times.

I want my colleagues to feel what I did when I heard his story, so I will quote Gabriel. He said:

Four people physically held me down while the “prophet” shouted into my ears for 30 minutes, calling for the demon to get out, and they made me drink “holy olive oil”.

He added:

Everyone around me was saying that my sexual orientation could be changed. I tried everything...but of course nothing was successful. I had a breakthrough between the ages of 18 and 19.... Now, I accept my orientation and am proud to be gay.

It is hard to imagine everything he went through.

The members of his group believed that homosexuality was a malevolent spirit, a demon. Gabriel said he was aware of that and believed it himself. Exorcism was one of the therapeutic techniques used.

He went on to say:

I think that the hardest part for me, harder even than the exorcism, was the self-rejection that followed, the feeling of being completely disgusted by myself, wanting to change completely, and being so desperate every day.... It was truly awful.

Gabriel Nadeau also added:

I found self-acceptance, and I realized that I didn't always have to conform to what other people wanted or thought, when it came to my sexuality or anything else. It is wonderful, and I would never go back to that religious prison.

I applaud him for having the courage to share his story and his experience, as traumatizing as it was. By sharing his story, he gave society and elected representatives like us an opportunity to reflect and the words and images to understand the violence that Quebeckers and Canadians who undergo conversion therapy may experience. I want Gabriel to know that we are grateful to him and we are thinking of him.

Fortunately, Quebec society and Canadian society, distinct though they may be, have a lot in common, in particular in terms of values. Quebec and Canada agree on certain matters and adopt consistent policies to enhance human rights.

As Bloc Québécois critic for living together, I would like to take this opportunity to highlight the Quebec government's human rights protection initiative, Bill 70, which prohibits conversion therapy in Quebec.

May 17 was International Day Against Homophobia, Transphobia and Biphobia. This year's theme was “For some, showing their colours isn't a choice”. Around the world, LGBTQ2S+ individuals are still the victims of psychological, physical and sexual violence.

The aim of the bill is to put an end to conversion therapy, which is a form of terrible psychological violence unsupported by science.

I would therefore invite all of my colleagues, especially my Conservative colleagues, who are trying to make amendments that could be made at a later date, to act before the end of the session. We must stop postponing the issue and vote to defend and protect LGBTQ2S+ individuals in Quebec and Canada. We must not postpone the adoption of the bill, but vote in favour of it. That is what I ask. No one deserves to suffer needlessly and bear the scars for the rest of their life.

It is our duty to protect the vulnerable. That is why I chose to go into politics. I would also like to mention that, not so long ago, on June 15, the Conservative leader tweeted, “Let me be clear, conversion therapy has no place in Canada and should be banned. Period.... I am committed to fighting this unacceptable and harmful practice. I will not compromise on this issue.” We will see if his word is worth anything when it comes to taking action.

According to a recent official survey, 47,000 Canadian men belonging to a sexual minority have been subjected to conversion therapy. We are not talking about 2,000 men or 5,000 men, but about 47,000 men.

The Bloc Québécois is proud to be a long-time ally of the LGBTQ2S+ community. All of my colleagues were prepared long ago to put an end to the violence of conversion therapy, here and now, so that no sexually or gender-diverse person has to convert, since we love them and celebrate them.

In conclusion, I do not know if my colleagues have seen the movie Boy Erased, but it really helped me understand what conversion therapy is like and the impact it has on individuals and their families. It was so terrifying that it gave me goose bumps. It really opened my eyes. I asked my children to watch it, and then we talked about it. The first thing they said was, “Mom, it is based on a true story. When did it happen?” I answered that it was not very long ago and that this sort of thing is still going on. This 2018 movie is based on the memoirs of Garrard Conley, a 35-year-old author and activist. He recounts the traumatizing and violent experience of the conversion therapy forced on him by his parents. He did not want the therapy. I urge my colleagues to watch the movie, because it was a powerful awareness-raising experience for me and my family.

In the end, that is what it is all about: education, information and understanding others. Regardless of our gender identity or sexual orientation, we are all beautiful in our diversity.

I am pleased to be able to say that the Bloc Québécois has always been resolutely committed to protecting and promoting the rights and freedoms of Quebeckers. I am very proud to belong to a political party that shares my values and that has always been an ally in the fight against discrimination based on sexual orientation, gender or gender expression.

I asked my colleagues to stand up and dare to take action. We need to pass Bill C-6 before the end of the session. It is already late, in my opinion. However, as we say, it is never too late.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the member for the passion she has brought to this issue, speaking so clearly about it and representing the voices of those who have been affected by conversion therapy. I particularly agree with her that we need to pass the bill before the end of this session. I know I have certainly been asking for it on my side of the House, because this is important. I also thank her for the recommendation on that movie. I will look it up because I have not heard of it.

I want to touch on the member's comments in regard to the Leader of the Opposition and the statement he made in June of last year when he said that he was against this. The Conservatives have been trying to use the issue of definition and how it is not detailed enough. Personally, I see that as a red herring. I see it as an excuse to avoid voting for something they claim to be so passionate about, especially when talking to certain demographics in our country.

Could the member comment as to why the Conservatives are so hell-bent on the issue of the definition?

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague.

Let us be frank. When a bill is specific and anticipated and has garnered widespread support, even from the head of the party of in question, but there are still grey areas or clashes of values among the members of that party, there is only one course they can follow: delay the study of the bill, filibuster and find a way to stretch the process out so that they can say that the bill did not pass in 2021.

After Bill C-8 and Bill C-6, how many others will we have to study? This has to end.

There may be a free vote, but I am convinced that Bill C-6 will be passed. The filibustering must stop, and the bill must be placed on our parliamentary agenda before the end of the session so that the Senate can also study and pass it.