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.

The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-6, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (conversion therapy), as reported (with amendment) from the committee.

Speaker’s Ruling

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

There is one motion in amendment standing on the Notice Paper for the report stage on Bill C-6. Motion No. 1 will be debated and voted upon.

Motions in Amendment

[David Lametti, Liberal, Minister of Justice]

moved:

Motion No. 1

That Bill C-6, in Clause 5, be amended by replacing line 31 on page 4 with the following:

320.101 In sections 320.102 to 320.105, conversion.

[Rob Oliphant, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Waterloo, the Minister of Diversity and Inclusion and Youth.

I want to begin by acknowledging that I am speaking today from the traditional territory of many nations, including the Mississaugas of the Credit, the Anishnabeg—

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

I have to interrupt the hon. parliamentary secretary as he needs unanimous consent to split his time.

Does the hon. member have unanimous consent to share his time?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Rob Oliphant, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

Madam Speaker, as I said, I begin by acknowledging I am speaking from the traditional territory of many nations including the Mississaugas of the Credit, the Anishinabe, the Chippewa, the Haudenosaunee and the Wendat peoples. It is now home to many diverse first nations, Inuit and Métis peoples. I commit every day to honour the treaties by which we share this land, which is ultimately a gift to us from our Creator.

I rise today in the House for the third reading of this important bill which brings forward amendments to the Criminal Code and moves us closer to seeing an end to the damaging practice of conversion therapy, a practice that continues to harm LGBTQ communities in Canada and around the world. This insidious and harmful practice must finally be put to a stop and this bill will bring about that important change.

That is the formal way I would normally start a speech in this House, by acknowledging the land we are on, name the bill and give my opinion on it, but I want to start again to simply say I am a gay man and this is a bill with amendments to the Criminal Code that is deeply personal and incredibly important to me.

While I do not expect everyone to relate to this bill the way I do and acknowledge the fact that out of 338 members in this place there are only four out, self-identified, open LGBTQ members, much smaller than the proportion in Canada's population, I do expect every member in this House to truly wrestle with what it means for them to vote against this bill. If they say they are voting against it as a matter of conscience, then I believe they need to stare deeply into that conscience and ask themselves, “Why would I want to perpetuate an injustice against another human being, a friend, a colleague, a family member, a neighbour, a constituent, anyone who will be hurt by that action; hurt perhaps to the point of death?” Why would they not want to stand with the vulnerable, with the oppressed, with the stigmatized, with the people who need their help the most?

I have heard and read the speeches against these amendments. They are tired and worn-out arguments that come from an age that I had thought we escaped long ago. The political rhetoric is there, trying to not sound like they are living in the stone Age, saying they are not against conversion therapy, just against this bill. They claim that the definition is too broad, that there are drafting errors in the bill, or they say that the escape clauses for religious bodies, escape clauses to help them avoid living up to God's command are not clear enough or wide enough, but I would say to them, as the prophet Micah did:

He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the LORD require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?

It is time for us to talk truth in this place. If someone is against this bill, frankly, they are against me and against people like me, saying ultimately that we are less than they are, that somehow God made a mistake when God created us and that we should change who we are or at least consider changing who we are. I am here to say today that I am not going to change. I do not want to change and no one should be told that they have to change or should change the way God made them to be.

Conversion therapy, at its core, implies that being gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, queer or two-spirited is somehow wrong. I am here to say that that is not true. I am here to say it is time for this House to declare it by putting to bed the myth that conversion therapy can ever be right in any circumstance in any place at any time. We already know well that LGBTQ communities in Canada have faced and continue to face social and economic disadvantages, and disparities in health, safety, employment, income and housing. These disparities are all linked to historic and systemic stigmatization and discrimination toward my community.

According to a report prepared by the House of Commons Standing Committee on Health, and based on a series of expert testimony and submissions, a wide range of health disparities are noted, including barriers to accessing health services. Notably, issues persist whereby LGBTQ2 communities are still not able to discuss their sexual orientation with their physician or, if they do, they often need to educate themselves, their health professionals, about their health needs. That same report highlights disparities in employment, income and housing. Strikingly, of the 40,000—

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

I apologize for interrupting the hon. parliamentary secretary. We are at report stage, not third reading, and he had only five minutes.

The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands.

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

Madam Speaker, I think if you seek it, you would find unanimous consent for the following motion. I move:

That, notwithstanding any Standing Order, Special Order or usual practices of the House:

a) the report stage amendment to Bill C-6, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, (conversion therapy), appearing on the Notice Paper in the name of the Minister of Justice, be deemed adopted on division;

b) Bill C-6 be deemed concurred in at report stage on division; and

c) the third reading stage of Bill C-6 be allowed to be taken up at the same sitting.

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

All those opposed to the hon. member moving the motion will please say nay.

The House has heard the terms of the motion. All those opposed to the motion will please say nay.

Hearing no dissenting voice, I declare the motion carried.

(Motion agreed to)

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

moved that the bill be read the third time and passed.

[Rob Oliphant, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Madam Speaker, I seek the unanimous consent of the House to split my time with the Minister of Diversity and Inclusion and Youth.

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

Does the hon. member have unanimous consent?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Rob Oliphant, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

Madam Speaker, I expect this will be even better the second time.

I want to begin by acknowledging that I am speaking from the traditional territory of many nations, including the Mississaugas of the Credit, the Anishinabe, the Chippewa and the Haudenosaunee and Wyandot peoples, which is also now home to many diverse first nations, Inuit and Métis peoples. I commit every day to honour the treaties by which we share this land, which is ultimately a gift to us from our Creator.

I rise today in the House for the third reading of this important bill, which brings forward amendments to the Criminal Code and moves us closer to seeing an end to the damaging practice of conversion therapy: a practice that continues to harm LGBTQ2 communities in Canada and around the world. These insidious and harmful practices must finally be put to a stop, and this bill would bring about an important change to the laws of Canada.

That is the formal way to start a speech in this place: We acknowledge the land we are on, name the bill we are speaking to, remind the House what its ramifications are and state clearly whether we support it and why.

However, I want to start again and simply say I am a gay man. This is a bill that makes amendments to the Criminal Code. It is a bill that is deeply personal and incredibly important to me. I acknowledge that out of 338 members in this place, there are only four out, self-identified and open LGBTQ2 members, a much smaller proportion than in the population of Canada. While I do not expect everyone to relate to this bill the way I do, I do expect every member in the House to truly wrestle with what it means for them to vote against this bill.

If members say they are voting against it as a matter of conscience, then they need to stare deeply into their conscience and ask themselves why they would want to perpetrate an injustice against another human being, friend, colleague, family member, neighbour, constituent or anyone who would be hurt by that action, perhaps to the point of death. Why would they not want to stand with the vulnerable, the oppressed and the stigmatized? These are the people who need their help the most.

I have heard or read the speeches against these amendments. For me, they are tired and worn-out arguments that come from an age I thought we had escaped decades ago. The political rhetoric is there, the members trying not to sound like they are still living in the stone age. They say they are not against conversion therapy, they are just against this bill. They claim the definition is too broad, or there are drafting errors in the bill, or they say the escape clauses for religious bodies, which help them avoid living up to God's command, are not clear or wide enough.

I say to them, as the prophet Micah did, “He has told you, oh mortal, what is good; and what does the Lord require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God.” It is time for us to talk truth in this place. If someone is against this bill, they are against me and against people like me. They are saying ultimately that we are less than they are, that somehow God made a mistake when God created us and that we should change who we are or at least consider changing who we are.

I am here to say today I am not going to change, and no one should be told that they have to change or should change or even could change who God made them to be. Conversion therapy, at its core, implies that being gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, queer or two-spirited is wrong. This is not true, and it is time for the House to declare that by putting to bed the myth that conversion therapy can ever be right, in any circumstance or in any place at any time.

We already know very well that LGBTQ2 communities in Canada have faced, and continue to face, a set of social and economic disadvantages. These include disparities in health, safety, employment, income and housing. These disparities are linked to historic and systemic stigmatization and discrimination against LGBTQ2 communities.

According to a report by the House of Commons Standing Committee on Health and based on a series of expert testimonies and submissions, a wide range of health disparities are noted. These include barriers to accessing health services, and issues persisting whereby LGBTQ2 individuals are still not able to discuss their sexual orientation with their physicians, or if they do, they have to be the ones to educate their own health professionals about their health needs.

The same report highlights disparities in employment, income and housing. Strikingly, of the 40,000 homeless youth in Canada, between 25% and 40% identify as being part of the LGBTQ2S community.

Just this week, retired Ontario Court of Appeal justice Gloria Epstein's long-awaited independent review found serious flaws in the way Toronto police handled the case of serial killer Bruce McArthur, whose killing spree from 2010-17 left at least eight gay men dead. Justice Epstein said that McArthur's victims were “marginalized and vulnerable in a variety of ways”, and their disappearances were often given less attention or priority than they deserved by the police. They were gay, and many of them were racialized or from communities that police simply did not care much about.

Underneath these findings is the stark truth that the lack of attention is not simply incompetence on the part of the Toronto police force, it is a deeply embedded homophobia. It is systemic homophobia. That kind of homophobia, which leads to people dying and being killed, is only furthered when society allows things like so-called conversion therapy to be practised. Conversion therapy, which undermines the value, the worth and the dignity of LGBTQ2S people aids and abets those who would discriminate against, hurt, damage or kill us.

It is true that, throughout all this, LGBTQ2 communities continue to demonstrate great resilience, resourcefulness, innovation and strength. However, dangerous attitudes and beliefs underpin and fuel all of this. Discrimination is real, stigma is real and harassment is real. Even though hurtful attitudes and beliefs about our community continue to exist, they need to be challenged and they need to be stopped. Thanks to the good work of the Minister of Diversity and Inclusion and Youth and the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, we in the House have a chance to do just that by supporting this bill.

It is not LGBTQ2 people and communities who need to be changed or converted. Harmful prejudice, homophobia, transphobia and all forms of discrimination need to be changed and converted into justice, compassion, understanding and respect. Ultimately, they need to be converted into love. That is what we will be able to do collectively as we support this bill and bring it into law to build a better Canada for everyone.

A vast breadth of sexual orientations, gender identities and gender expressions exists. That is nothing to fear. We must, as a society, reach a point where we all understand that each person's sexual orientation, gender identity and gender expression are intrinsic parts of who we are. We need to embrace these in ourselves and in other people, even when we do not fully comprehend what they mean.

That is why this is such an important bill. Conversion therapy is based on misinformed assumptions and harmful beliefs. By moving forward with stopping the harmful practice of conversion therapy, we are not only moving to stamp out this practice and protect the lives of LGBTQ2 communities and people, we are also sending an important message. Our gender identities, our gender expressions and our sexual orientations are essential parts of who we are and they are not up for debate. They should be understood, appreciated and celebrated. Then we can have a truly inclusive, cohesive society.

It is obvious I was not born yesterday, which everyone can tell by my tired look. That simply means that I have seen tremendous advances in attitudes toward people like me. Just as I was beginning to understand my sexual orientation, the late prime minister Pierre Trudeau ensured that I would not be a criminal if I chose to act on my sexuality and love another man. I saw the emergence of human rights legislation and court decisions based on the charter that gave me a chance to marry my partner with whom I have shared almost 30 years. I have seen my government apologize to those hurt by systemic homophobia in the public service, the military and our national police force.

Now I am going to be in this virtual chamber when we take the next step to ban conversion therapy. We are not done yet. Old attitudes take a long time to die and a long time to bury, but this is our chance—

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

We have to go to questions and comments. The hon. member for Cloverdale—Langley City.

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

Madam Speaker, I am so glad that my colleague invoked the words of the prophet Micah, so I am going to invoke the words of the Apostle Matthew, who stated:

Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You are like whitewashed tombs, which look beautiful on the outside but on the inside are full of the bones of the dead and everything unclean.

I have had so many people reach out to me in regard to this bill. Charlotte, a young woman in Calgary, was involved in lesbian activity. She struggled with self-worth and depression. She reached a point in her life when she did not want to continue with her lesbian activity, and her parents supported her choice and helped her find a counsellor who helped her process the feelings. She said:

Because of the counselling, I had a deep sense of love and acceptance. It was not harmful, coercive or abusive in any way.... If you enact the proposed bill, you're banning the exact support that I desperately needed at that time in my life. If this bill is to be truly inclusive, include people like me.

Why will the government not respond to—

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

I have to give the hon. parliamentary secretary a chance to answer.

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

[Rob Oliphant, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

Madam Speaker, the first thing I would say is that people like me are not unclean. It is deeply offensive to play Bible baseball like that. I know my Bible very well. That is why I would call him the Apostle Matthew. I understand every word in that scripture, having studied it and having a doctorate in theology. It is offensive to even use that word in the context of this debate.

What we are about is ensuring the safety and security of everyone, including Charlotte and anybody who has doubts or concerns about their sexuality, but not to engage in conversion therapy.

People deserve counselling and support. I spent 25 years of my life as a pastoral counsellor. I am proud of that work. I am proud of the fact that in my Christian heritage we will stand up and defend people, as do people in heritages of every sort and every religious background. This is a time to move beyond—

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

Questions and comments, the hon. member for North Island—Powell River.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the member so much for his speech. It was better the second time because it was not interrupted.

I am also grateful to be a part of the House as we look at this important legislation. I recognize this bill will not fix the historic wounds of conversion therapy, nor will it fix the homophobia and transphobia we still see in so many of our communities. I wonder if the member could talk about what the Liberal government will do to build capacity within the SOGIE community so that these challenges can be addressed by the community.

[Rob Oliphant, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank colleagues from the New Democratic Party, including the hon. member, for their support. It has been long-standing, rich and important. It is very good to have friends.

The SOGIE community continues to need support, in particular people in other vulnerable and intersectionally biased communities; that is, people who are poor, who are indigenous and who are from racialized communities. I hope the Minister of Diversity and Inclusion and Youth will have a chance to talk about that, because I am very pleased with what her department is doing. It is reaching out. It is a cross-departmental secretariat that is ensuring that people have the resources they need. That includes continuing to work for every agency in every country to have the resources, whether through interpretation, cultural dialogue or anything. We are not there yet and we—

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

One last question, the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague, the parliamentary secretary, for his intervention today, but more importantly for his response to that ignorant first question we heard.

The reality is that, as the LGBTQ movement has been progressing, minds have been changed and people have come to realize the mistakes that were made in the past. I think of my parents, who have come so far from their original positions on gay marriage to where they are now.

Can the member talk from his experience about how we have made progress over the last number of decades, and where we ultimately need to be to establish a full sense of equality for all people in this country?

[Rob Oliphant, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

Madam Speaker, I have seen tremendous change. I have seen people go from complete misunderstanding to great love. I continue to be inspired by them. Some of them sit in the House. Hopefully tomorrow there will be even more sitting in the House who have made that conversion, which needs to be made.

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Minister of Diversity and Inclusion and Youth]

Madam Speaker, I want to begin by acknowledging that I am joining the House from Waterloo, Ontario, the traditional territory of the Haudenosaunee, Anishinaabe and Neutral people.

I also want to thank my dear friend and colleague, the member of Parliament for Don Valley West, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs, for sharing his time with me. Mostly, I thank him as a fellow Canadian citizen. I thank him as a fellow member of the human race. I thank him for being his true authentic person he was put on this Earth to be.

It is a privilege to rise in support of Bill C-6, an act to amend the Criminal Code to abolish the destructive practice of conversion therapy in Canada. I rise today with someone else's words, words I have not been able to forget since I first heard them. They are the words of Peter Gajdics, a survivor of six years of conversion therapy, who appeared before the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights in December. Mr. Gajdics said:

I still consider it a miracle I didn't die. I left these six years shell-shocked. It was not so much that I wanted to kill myself as I thought I was already dead.

Imagine being parents feeling like they cannot accept part of who their child truly is or who or how they love. That is deep conditioning at work, conditioning that imprisons people in the misguided belief that the only acceptable path is being cisgender or heterosexual, conditioning based on myths, stereotypes and underlying mistruths that are rooted in and perpetuate homophobia, biphobia and transphobia.

It is high time for us to take decisive action to end conversion therapy and to do everything we can to stop violence and discrimination in its tracks. LGBTQ2 rights are human rights.

My mandate letter as the Minister of Diversity and Inclusion and Youth asks me to promote LGBTQ2 equality, promote LGBTQ2 rights and address discrimination against LGBTQ2 communities.

A recent global survey tells us that four out of five people who undergo these damaging therapies are younger than 24 years old, and of those, roughly half are under 18 years old. This is far too many young people growing up being told they are invalid, shameful or unnatural, far too many young people being told that how they perceive themselves, who they want to be in this world or who or how they love is wrong.

Bill C-6 get us one step closer to that goal.

These young people are our future. We must protect them. We have to put an end to conversion therapy, especially for children and youth.

I would like to thank the witnesses who appeared before committee, those who contributed submissions and the standing committee members who came together to strengthen the legislation for Canadians. Further defining conversion therapy to include gender expression while making clear the heinous efforts to force people to be something they are not is the target of this legislation.

In addition to the five original prohibited offences, the committee's amendments clarify that conversion therapy performed without consent is to be criminalized and that promoting conversion therapy services or practices is also to be targeted.

Unlike some misguided narratives we have heard about the bill, it would not criminalize another person's values, opinions or beliefs. It does not criminalize a private conversation where these values or beliefs are being expressed. We recognize it is crucial to ensure affirming and supportive guidance and advice remains available to those coming to terms with who they are.

There is no question that these proposed amendments bring us one step closer to building the safer and consciously more inclusive Canada we all imagine. However, we know that achieving this vision will take more than legislation. It will take a transformation of our ideas about and attitudes toward LGBTQ2 communities, a transformation of our broader perspectives on diversity and inclusion. It will take nothing short of a revolution of the hearts and minds of all Canadians.

The Government of Canada is strongly committed to protecting the rights of LGBTQ2 Canadians and ensuring full and equitable participation in society.

We are working with all levels of government and with partners from all sectors to bring about positive change across Canada.

As leaders, as legislators, as Canadians, as compassionate human beings, it is our job to ensure that Canada is a country for everyone, regardless of their sexual orientation, gender identity or gender expression, can live in equity and freedom.

Not long ago, six Conservative members voted against the bill at second reading in the House. Anyone who continues to oppose the proposals in Bill C-6 is in direct opposition to the community.

The bill and all our actions to recognize and protect the rights of LGBTQ2 Canadians are important and necessary steps in building a safer, more equitable and consciously more inclusive Canada we all want. Conversion therapy practices have no place in Canada.

When I think of the courage and resilience of the many survivors who gave their testimony in December, I know that we in the House have a duty to ensure that we do not let them down. We are indebted to their collective strength and steadfastness in the face of oppression of those who speak out.

When children arrive into this world, they are not innately born with prejudice or hatred. Children are taught to hate and to discriminate, taught to be ashamed of who they are and taught that there is only one correct way to live and be. We have to provide a different future for our next generations, an even better and consciously more inclusive future.

Our task is clear: The time to act is now. I urge all members to support this legislation, protect Canadians and uphold human rights for all. For members who oppose Bill C-6, do so in their right but not by speaking with fear or misinformation.

Tomorrow, we mark the anniversary of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Let us all work to create and defend and build on these rights and freedoms. Let us protect these hard-fought rights and freedoms, because I know we can and must do better.

[Karen Vecchio, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Madam Speaker, I do not support conversion therapy, but I do understand some of these concerns. I will be supporting the bill, but there are some concerns when it comes to those simple dialogues that we want to have with our children.

As a parent of five children, sometimes having those dialogues can be very difficult. I know there has been a great discussion about what is or is not criminalized. I think many people are just looking for assurance.

Could the minister share her thoughts on this so those people who are concerned feel there is more balance here?

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

Madam Speaker, first, it is nice to see the member even if it is virtually. She is very thoughtful in her debate and discussion, and that is part of the challenge we sometimes have as members of Parliament: our personal values versus representing our communities. I want to assure the member and all Canadians listening that discussions and open-ended conversations that explore identity are not conversion therapy and they are not targeted in the bill.

Children should be free to ask questions about who they are and to come to know themselves. That is why health care workers, parents, teachers, religious leaders must be able to continue supporting and affirming youth in these conversations and discussions.

The challenge where it becomes conversion therapy is when it is without consent, when it is being imposed, when people are being forced to change who they are or exploring who they are. That is where there is a little misinformation about what the legislation would do. We have worked really hard and have listened to a lot of the community to ensure we have it right. We hear from many people who say we need to go further. I want to assure exploratory—

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

Moving on to questions and comments.

The hon. member for London—Fanshawe.

[Lindsay Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Madam Speaker, I want to build upon what the member said about this being one step.

During COVID, a lot of the supports in our communities have been greatly impacted. Could she talk about future steps going forward regarding what monies and supports will be provided by the government to our communities to ensure we go that step beyond and to ensure we fully incorporate and encompass the support she talked about in her speech?

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member and her party for their unconditional support of protecting and defending LGBTQ2 rights as human rights.

When the pandemic hit, one of the first things our government did when it came to funding agreements was to recognize that the environment and the situation were changing. We wanted to ensure that organizations that were supporting members within the LGBTQ2 community were able to continue their work, because those supports are more necessary today than ever.

In 2019, our government put forward a $20 million community capacity fund for LGBTQ2 communities. It is the first fund of its kind, a fund that will help communities build the foundation they need to support members of their communities. We have also ensured that, as we make appointments, we are more conscious about the diversity of our country to ensure these voices make it to the decision-making table. We have—

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

We have one last question.

The hon. member for Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne.

[Sherry Romanado, Liberal, Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, QC]

Madam Speaker, my aunt and her partner have built a beautiful family and a life together. There is nothing wrong with them, and I would not change them for the world. Could the minister share how this bill will help young people in the LGBTQ2 community find the same happiness that my aunts have found?

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

Madam Speaker, that member has the courage to share a bit about her family and allow us to enter into her private life. Many people have looked into their families and how this legislation would impact them. Young people are not only our leaders of tomorrow, they are the leaders of today. They need to be their true, authentic selves and we have to support them.

The legislation is one step closer to every individual being able to contribute in a meaningful way and to be proud of the shell that he or she occupies. When we—

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

Resuming debate, the hon. member for St. Albert—Edmonton.

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

Madam Speaker, I would seek unanimous consent to split my time with my colleague, the member for South Surrey—White Rock.

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

Does the hon. member have unanimous consent?

Hearing no objection, the hon. member has consent.

The hon. member for St. Albert—Edmonton.

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

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to speak to Bill C-6, an act to amend the Criminal Code to ban conversion therapy.

Let me say at the outset that conversion therapy is absurd. It is wrong, and it is harmful. Conversion therapy should be banned. Individuals who perpetrate such harmful acts and seek to coercively change someone's sexual orientation or sexual identity should be held accountable to the fullest extent of the law under the penalty of the Criminal Code. I unequivocally support the purported objective of this legislation, which is why I voted for Bill C-6 at second reading.

I did so notwithstanding the fact that I did have some concerns with the manner in which the bill was drafted. In particular, I had concerns that the definition of conversion therapy was vague and overly broad, and that it could capture not only those circumstances that involve coercive, abusive or otherwise harmful efforts to change someone's sexual orientation or identity, but could also more broadly encapsulate such things as good-faith conversations.

Nonetheless, because I unequivocally support the purported objective of the bill, I was hopeful, as a member of the justice committee, that we could come together at committee to study the bill in detail, hear from a wide range of witnesses and bring forward appropriate amendments where necessary to get the definition right.

It goes without saying that if we are to carve out any law in the Criminal Code to ban conversion therapy, it is absolutely imperative that we get the definition right. At committee, many of the concerns I had with the way in which the bill had been drafted were expressed by a wide range of witnesses, including members of the LGBTQ community, lawyers, medical professionals and members of the clergy.

More specifically, with respect to the definition and some of the issues that arise therefrom, I would first of all note that in the bill, conversion therapy is defined as any “practice, treatment or service”. These terms are not defined anywhere in the Criminal Code, and it should be noted that nowhere in the bill are these terms qualified in order to provide the context in which the practice, treatment or service would apply. Although these terms are found in parts of the Criminal Code, they are not stand-alone terms as they are in Bill C-6.

It is true that the term “treatment” connotes a therapeutic context. However, “practice” or “service” could, without qualification, involve just about any activity. For example, a “practice” could involve a good-faith conversation, and “service” could involve a voluntary counselling session or a religious sermon.

I was concerned and witnesses were expressing concern about the lack of clarity with respect to those terms, but in addition to that, the definition, as provided in Bill C-6, provides that it would ban any practice, treatment or service designed to reduce sexual attraction or sexual behaviour.

The definition is clearly expansive. It goes beyond a clear and targeted definition. Without any qualification, it could arguably include counselling sessions or other supports provided on a voluntary basis by medical professionals and other professionals. It could, arguably, capture good-faith conversations between persons struggling with their sexual identity and medical professionals, parents and other family members, religious leaders and others.

It is important to note that this definition of conversion therapy is not used by any professional body. It is not used by the Canadian Psychiatric Association, the Canadian Psychological Association or their American counterparts. In the face of that ambiguity, which was supported by witness testimony, Conservatives sought to bring forward amendments to get the definition right.

Now, the Minister of Justice, the Minister of Diversity and Inclusion and Youth and other members of the government have repeatedly said that the bill before us would not target voluntary, good-faith conversations. I do not doubt their sincerity when they say that is what they believe. Consistent with that, the website of the Department of Justice states the same.

However, what matters not is the minister's interpretation of the bill. What matters not is what is on the website of the Department of Justice. What matters is, in fact, what is in the bill, which is why Conservatives brought forward an amendment to simply incorporate into the bill the very language that was provided on the website of the Department of Justice. Such language would have provided certainty. It would have provided clarity that good-faith and voluntary conversations would not be the subject of the imposition of criminal charges laid against persons.

Let me be clear that it is a fundamental requirement of the rule of law that a person should be able to know and predict whether a particular act constitutes a crime. Here we have a definition that is vague and overly broad, and therefore is at risk of contravening fundamental justice. It could be deemed contrary to section 7 of the charter as a result.

In closing, the government's intention is a good one, and the intent of the bill is a good one, but it is important that we get the definition right. I am concerned that we have not achieved that in the bill before us.

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

Madam Speaker, if I understand correctly, the member supports the ban on conversion therapy; however, he is hung up on the definition of three individual words, which could be very easily found in any Webster's dictionary, to provide context as to what they mean. Is that what the member is trying to tell this House?

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

Madam Speaker, with respect to the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands, it appears he did not listen carefully to my speech.

I noted, yes, that I had concerns with the terms “practice”, “treatment” and “service”, but I also noted concerns about the definition including the reduction of sexual attraction or sexual behaviour. There were many LGBTQ witnesses who appeared before committee who said that they were concerned this would make it illegal or create a chilling effect on counselling services and supports that they have relied on and that have helped them in their development and identity.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.

I understand his concerns about the clarity of the bill's wording, but I wonder if he might take comfort in the fact that, when judges are called to interpret it, in order to exclude good faith conversations, they will also refer to parliamentary work and the debates for context.

Does my colleague take comfort in that?

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

Madam Speaker, it is absolutely essential that, when we draft legislation, we ensure that it is targeted toward demonstrated harms. We should not wait for a judge to interpret it or hope that a judge will interpret the law the way we hope a judge would do in the face of vague and overly broad language, and on a matter that can involve five years behind bars upon conviction.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Madam Speaker, I hear the hon. member profess that he agrees that conversion therapy should be banned and banned criminally, yet he is concerning himself with the definitions about what counselling might mean. Leading lawyers and other people involved, including the Canadian Association of Social Workers and others, have said that good-faith counselling sessions and good-faith therapy would not be covered by this ban.

Is the hon. member just looking for an excuse to fail to pass this bill at third reading?

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

Madam Speaker, with respect to the member for St. John's East, I voted for this bill at second reading. I heard the testimony of witnesses at the justice committee, in which there were significant concerns expressed. We worked to include language to provide that clarity.

I do not know why the government did not support such language because, had such language been incorporated, I believe we could have this bill pass this place with unanimous support or something very close to it. It is unfortunate that opportunity was missed.

[Joël Godin, Conservative, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from St. Albert—Edmonton and I would like to hear his thoughts on the fact that I share his concerns.

We agree on the principles of the bill. I think we need to be more inclusive. However, we do not want this to be rushed through and botched this time, as we have come to expect from the Liberals.

Could my colleague comment on the possibility of working with members of the Senate to come up with a definition and clarify this legislation from the outset rather than putting the onus on judges, so we can avoid any potential excesses?

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

Madam Speaker, the member for Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier is absolutely right that it is important that we get the definition right. Surely, we want this legislation to pass constitutional muster, and a piece of legislation that has a definition that is vague and overly broad is at risk of a charter challenge, at risk of being found to contravene fundamental justice and at risk of being found to contravene section 7 of the charter.

I had hoped that this would not be the case and that we could have gotten it right, so that we could have a law on the books that would stand.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise today not to debate a ban on coercive conversion therapy, but instead to debate the means by which we ban this harmful, damaging practice. I want to make one thing very clear from the outset: I am against forcibly attempting to change an individual’s sexual orientation. I condemn that practice in the strongest possible terms. There is simply no place for this in Canada.

However, there is a place in Canada for compassion. At the justice committee, of which I am a member, we heard testimony from a variety of stakeholders on this bill, including survivors of coercive conversion therapy, members of the 2SLGBTQ+ community, indigenous leaders, academics, doctors, lawyers and faith leaders. I thank all the witnesses for their contributions, especially those who had the strength and courage to share their very personal experiences. I know it could not have been easy.

It is evident to me from having heard these witnesses, read countless briefs and spoken to dozens of constituents that there is a widespread support for banning coercive conversion therapy practices, and there should be. However, as with all legislation, the language must be clear. We need to ensure that judges can interpret and apply the law as it is written, and that Canadians know what the law prohibits and what it does not: in other words, whom it protects and whom it does not. On this point, I have heard repeatedly that the bill’s definition of conversion therapy is unclear and overbroad, as my colleague just said, and may have unintended consequences.

For earlier Liberal speakers to say that those with any concerns are against the communities we are trying to help, and speak from fear, is a harmful, wrong-minded statement. The Minister of Justice has said that the bill would not affect good-faith conversations, which I understand to mean caring, non-coercive discussions with doctors, parents, counsellors, faith leaders or others to whom Canadians, young and old, may turn for support. However, the bill, as drafted, does not say that. Why not? As we all know, what matters is not what the minister says the bill will do, but what the bill actually says. That is the law. That is what judges will apply, from Victoria to St. John’s.

Several witnesses appearing before the committee called for amendments to the bill to clarify its definition, to make it clear that it does not criminalize these good-faith conversations. Coercive conversion therapy should be banned, but we should leave politicization out and remember that we are dealing with real people with real vulnerabilities trying to make their way and needing help at a vulnerable time. We need to clarify, then proceed. The government should welcome the broadest possible support among Canadians for this legislation: nothing more, nothing less.

In fact, when the committee first heard from the Minister of Justice on this bill, the minister admitted, “I will focus on the bill's definition of conversion therapy, because there appears to be some persisting confusion about its scope.” I agree with the minister. There is persisting confusion, and the confusion is about its scope, confusion that we, as parliamentarians, have a duty to rectify.

André Schutten, legal counsel and director of law and policy at the Association for Reformed Political Action Canada, or ARPA, told the committee the definition is ambiguous, unclear and overbroad, and that it “captures helpful counselling and psychological support for children, teens, and adults”.

Colette Aikema explained to the committee that the counselling she received to help her cope with past traumas, including abuse and rape, would be criminalized by this definition of conversion therapy. Ms. Aikema told the committee that her voluntary therapy from a University of Lethbridge counsellor and a faith-based sex addiction group helped save both her marriage and her life. This was powerful testimony that should not be ignored.

We also heard from Timothy Keslick, a member of the 2SLGBTQ+ community, who fears that without further clarification, the therapy he relies on to help him navigate his same-sex relationships would be barred by the bill’s ban on treatment that “repress[es] or reduce[s] non-heterosexual attraction or sexual behaviours”.

Others also expressed the need to clarify the definition of conversion therapy in the bill—

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

I apologize. I have to interrupt the member, who will have five minutes to complete her speech next time the bill comes to the floor.

Criminal Code

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

Madam Speaker, there have been discussions among the parties, and if you seek it, I believe you will find unanimous consent to adopt the following motion:

That,

(a) pursuant to section 5(1) of An Act to Amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying), a Special Joint Committee of the Senate and the House of Commons be appointed to review the provisions of the Criminal Code relating to medical assistance in dying and their application, including but not limited to issues relating to mature minors, advanced requests, mental illness, the state of palliative care in Canada and the protection of Canadians with disabilities;

(b) pursuant to section 5(2) of the Act, five members of the Senate and ten members of the House of Commons be members of the committee, including five members of the House of Commons from the governing party, three members of the House of Commons from the Official Opposition and two members of the House of Commons from opposition who are not members of the Official Opposition, with two Chairs of which the House Co-Chair shall be from the governing party and the Senate Co-Chair shall be determined by the Senate;

(c) in addition to the Co-Chairs, the committee shall elect three vice-chairs from the House, of whom the first vice-chair shall be from the Conservative Party of Canada, the second vice-chair shall be from the Bloc Québécois, and the third vice-chair shall be from the New Democratic Party;

(d) pursuant to section 5(3) of the Act, the quorum of the committee be eight members whenever a vote, resolution or other decision is taken, so long as both Houses and one member of the governing party in the House, one member of the opposition in the House and one member of the Senate are present, and that the Joint Chairs be authorized to hold meetings, to receive evidence and authorize the printing thereof, whenever six members are present, as long as both Houses and one member of the governing party in the House, one member of the opposition in the House and one member of the Senate are represented;

(e) the House of Commons members be named by their respective whip by depositing with the Clerk of the House the list of their members to serve on the committee no later than five sitting days after the adoption of this motion;

(f) changes to the membership of the committee, on the part of the House of Commons, be effective immediately after notification by the relevant whip has been filed with the Clerk of the House;

(g) membership substitutions, on the part of the House of Commons, be permitted, if required, in a manner provided for in Standing Order 114(2) and that they may be filed with the Clerk of the committee by email;

(h) until Wednesday, June 23, 2021, members may participate either in person or by video conference and witnesses shall participate remotely;

(i) until Wednesday, June 23, 2021, members who participate remotely shall be counted for the purpose of quorum;

(j) until Wednesday, June 23, 2021, except for those decided unanimously or on division, all questions shall be decided by a recorded vote;

(k) until Wednesday, June 23, 2021, when more than one motion is proposed for the election of the joint chair or vice-chairs, any motion received after the initial one shall be taken as a notice of motion and such motions shall be put to the committee seriatim until one is adopted;

(l) the committee have the power to sit during sittings and adjournments of the House;

(m) the committee have the power to report from time to time, to send for persons, papers and records, and to print such papers and evidence as may be ordered by the committee;

(n) the committee have the power to retain the services of expert, professional, technical and clerical staff, including legal counsel;

(o) the committee have the power to appoint, from among its members, such sub-committees as may be deemed appropriate and to delegate to such sub-committees, all or any of its powers, except the power to report to the Senate and House of Commons;

(p) the committee have the power to authorize video and audio broadcasting of any or all of its proceedings and that public proceedings be made available to the public via the Parliament of Canada's websites;

(q) until Wednesday, June 23, 2021, in camera proceedings may be conducted in a manner that takes into account the potential risks to confidentiality inherent in meetings with remote participants;

(r) pursuant to section 5(5) of the Act, the committee submit a final report of its review, including a statement of any recommended changes, to Parliament no later than one year after the day in which it commenced their review;

(s) pursuant to section 5(6) of the act, following the tabling of the final report in both Houses, the Committee shall expire; and that a message be sent to the Senate requesting that House to unite with this House for the above purpose and to select, if the Senate deems advisable, Members to act on the proposed Special Joint Committee.

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

All those opposed to the hon. member moving the motion will please say nay.

It is agreed.

The House has heard the terms of the motion. All those opposed will please say nay.

Hearing no dissenting voice, I declare the motion carried.

(Motion agreed to)

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

moved that Bill C-219, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (sexual exploitation), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Madam Speaker, it is indeed an honour to represent the good people of Perth—Wellington in this place.

It is an honour to rise in the House this afternoon to begin second reading debate of my private member's bill, known in this Parliament as Bill C-219, an act to amend the Criminal Code (sexual exploitation).

As I stated when I introduced the bill at first reading, it is a direct result of the advocacy, comments and concerns of the people of Perth—Wellington.

In early 2018, an incident occurred in which a person employed to work with persons with disabilities, who was also a children's entertainer, was convicted of a serious sexual crime against a person living with disabilities. My constituents were outraged by the lenient sentence of a monetary fine and probation, and called for a resolution to the flaw in the Criminal Code.

In a perfect world, I would have liked to have done so much more through the bill to better support Canadians living with disabilities. Far too often I hear from constituents who live with disabilities that they have fallen through the cracks: those who experience challenges in accessing government programs; those who face challenges with housing; and those who encounter barriers in employment. However, as hon. members know, with the limitations of Private Members' Business, it would not be possible to achieve all these goals through legislation without a royal recommendation.

In his 1913 autobiography, Theodore Roosevelt includes this quotation, “Do what you can, with what you've got, where you are”. I am here today in the House doing what I can with the legislative resources available to me to try in this way to better protect Canadians living with disabilities.

I originally introduced the legislation in the previous Parliament, in January 2019, as Bill C-424. However, as members know, the Standing Orders on Private Members' Business were a barrier to moving the bill forward at the time and it died on the Order Paper when the 42nd Parliament was dissolved.

During the 2019 election, the proposals contained in my bill were included as part of the Conservative Party's election platform, and I personally made the commitment to my constituents that if I were to be re-elected, I would bring back this legislation to the House. Today, I am fulfilling that commitment to the constituents of Perth—Wellington.

Shortly after I tabled the bill for the second time in February 2020, another case involving sexual exploitation reached the news. This case involved a young person. The former chief of police of Bridgewater, Nova Scotia was sentenced to a 15-month imprisonment following an October 2019 conviction for sexually exploiting a 17-year-old girl. In this instance, the offender was also convicted of sexual assault, however, this caused a legal issue as it was questioned as to whether the court could convict a guilty person of two criminal offences for the same incident. In this case, the conviction of sexual exploitation was entered and the conviction of sexual assault was stayed.

As a sexual exploitation charge is often accompanied by a sexual assault charge, Bill C-219 would provide the additional benefit of ensuring only fair sentences are available when such controversies occur. Furthermore, Bill C-219 proposes to provide courts with the ability to impose harsher sentences in instances when only a charge of sexual exploitation is made. One example of the convictions of sexual exploitation but not sexual assault occurred last year, also in Nova Scotia, in which a religious leader was convicted of sexually exploiting a 17-year-old young person.

The second proposal contained within Bill C-219 was also inspired by the incident that occurred in my riding. If passed, the bill will require courts to consider the fact that a victim is a person living physical or mental disability as an aggravating circumstance when sentencing a person convicted under section 286.1(1) or 286.1(2) of the Criminal Code. This would fill an unfortunate void currently existing in the Criminal Code.

Persons living with disabilities are more vulnerable to this kind of exploitation due to a number of factors, including the capacity to give consent. What is more, in many cases, the offender is known to the victim and is often someone the victim must rely upon for care or other personal or financial support. This addition to the Criminal Code would ensure courts always take into account this vulnerability.

It is a sad truth, but as legislators we must be willing to admit that sexual exploitation is a problem in our country and we must strengthen our laws to better protect the most vulnerable in our communities.

Research and statistics have time and time again shown us that young people and persons living with disabilities are more often than not the victims of sexual and other types of crime.

According to Statistics Canada's report “Victims of Police-reported violent crime in Canada, 2016”, “When controlling for population, the rate of victimization was highest among youth aged 16 to 17 and young adults aged 18 to 24.” The report further explains, “Overall, 8% of police-reported victims were victims of sexual offences. However, these offences were much more prevalent among child and youth victims that came to the attention of police.” The report goes on to state that 34%, more than one-third of female victims of sexual offences, were aged only 12 to 17 years old.

According to Statistics Canada’s Report Violent Victimization of Women with Disabilities, “according to both self-reported and police-reported data, the large majority of victims are women...This trend is also evident when looking at the population with a disability” who are victims of self-reported sexual assault “as nearly nine in ten (88%) victims...were women.” The report also states that Canadians with a disability, 30% of incidents, were more likely to be victimized in their own home compared to victims who did not have disability. This serves to highlight the sad reality that even in their home, people with a disability are at an increased vulnerability.

According to the Department of Justice Research and Statistics Division, “Sexual assault is a gendered crime; women are victimized at a higher rate…than men... As with other violent victimization…young people aged 15-24 years have the highest rate of sexual assault (71 incidents per 1,000 population).”

Sexual exploitation is a disturbing crime because it involves an imbalance and an abuse of power. Often it involves some sort of authority figure in a position of trust. That is why for years the Criminal Code includes the following description in its section on sexual exploitation “Every person...who is in a position of trust or authority towards a young person” or “who is a person with whom the young person is in a relationship of dependency. ” Furthermore, in the sexual exploitation of someone with a person with a disability, it reads similarly, “Every person who is in a position of trust or authority towards a person with a mental or physical disability or who is a person with whom a person with a mental or physical disability is in a relationship of dependency.”

This makes the specific crime of sexual exploitation all the more concerning. It requires a person in a position of power to take advantage of that power for their own appalling purposes. There is no excuse and there is no justification for these kinds of acts. These crimes occur when a person actively choses to use their position to harm an innocent victim.

Last month I had the honour to meet virtually with representatives of Boost Child & Youth Advocacy Centre, an organization that provides services to victims of these types of crimes from Toronto to Barrie to Peterborough. They talk about how difficult it is for victims of vulnerable populations in the justice system.

We need to ensure they are respected and supported. We need to ensure when victims come forward, they feel they are taken seriously. We need to ensure victims of these types of crimes have faith in the system and believe the devastating acts committed against them will not go unpunished.

I recognize that introducing legislation that proposes to increase sentences may not be consistent with the direction of the current government, which has often taken the position that some mandatory minimums are not appropriate. I would like to address that issue.

Charter challenges on mandatory minimum sentences are determinations if the sentence is “grossly disproportionate”. This is not the case with this bill. Given the abuse of power and the long-term impacts on victims, it should be clear to all of us that a one-year minimum sentence for sexual exploitation of a person under 18 years of age or a person with a disability is proportionate to the serious crime.

Sex crimes are different from other crimes. This has been recognized by successive governments for decades, including by the current Liberal government. The current mandatory minimum sentence of 90 days for sexual exploitation of a young person has been in place since the current Liberal government came to office and they have chosen to keep that in place. In fact, when the government introduced Bill C-22, their own backgrounder explicitly stated they were not proposing to remove mandatory minimum sentences for sexual offences and listed them among other serious violent offences in which strict sentences remain in place.

Furthermore, when the justice minister spoke in the House, he clearly stated that sexual offences committed against children were committed by serious criminals and should be treated seriously. The same should be true of sexual offences committed against persons living with disabilities.

It would be beneficial for Parliament, the elected branch of government, to explicitly include in the Criminal Code a higher sentence for these crimes for the purpose of protecting vulnerable Canadians. Criminal laws serve to protect vulnerable people and serve a valid purpose. They are a legitimate part of fostering a safe society and they serve the public good.

The last number of months, under the challenges of COVID-19, many Canadians have been distressed to hear increasing reports of sexual crimes.

On July 13, 2020, a CBC news headline stated, “Child sex exploitation is on the rise in Canada during the pandemic.” The article states, “Cybertip.ca said...saw an 81 per cent spike over April, May and June in reports from youth who had been sexually exploited, and reports of people trying to sexually abuse children.”

A Global News report last month stated that a man from outside of Edmonton was arrested and charged with multiple counts of exploitation, among other charges.

A March 20, CBC news headlined stated, “Reports of sexual violations against children double in P.E.I.”

I encourage all members of all parties to come together to support this bill. In fact, there is precedence for all-party co-operation regarding changes to these sections of the Criminal Code.

Prior to 2005, the maximum sentence for sexual exploitation of a young person as an indictable offence was only five years, and no minimum sentence was provided. This changed in the 38th Parliament, when the then Liberal minority government passed Bill C-2, an act to amend the Criminal Code, protection of children and other vulnerable persons, and the Canada Evidence Act, which was sponsored by then justice minister Irwin Cotler. That bill increased the maximum sentence for sexual exploitation of a young person to 10 years, and introduced a minimum sentence of 14 days.

The bill also added to the Criminal Code a list of factors regarding the nature and circumstances of the relations to be established to determine how the relationship is exploitative. As Minister Cotler told the justice committee at the time, the purposes of the bill were ”to provide greater protection to youth against sexual exploitation from persons who would prey on their vulnerability.”

This bill was not only supported by all parties, but its passage was accelerated by all-party agreement and the use of a unanimous consent motion.

Then, on May 1, 2008, the Criminal Code was amended again, through another bill also named Bill C-2, this time to change the definition of a young person and to provide additional protections. This bill, the Tackling Violent Crime Act, was sponsored by the then justice minister Rob Nicholson and passed quickly through the House of Commons with all-party support and co-operation.

I would note the support of that bill included the current Minister of Transport, the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations, the government House leader, the chief government whip, and the Liberals members for Ottawa South, Halifax West, Humber River—Black Creek, Lac-Saint-Louis and Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame.

Young people and persons living with disabilities need to be protected. It is incumbent on us to pass this bill, because it is a targeted bill to correct two specific flaws in the Criminal Code. As parliamentarians, we have a duty to ensure the Criminal Code provides appropriate sentences for disturbing crimes so vulnerable Canadians are not at risk. There is no excuse for these crimes.

I urge all my fellow members to support this important bill.

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member opposite for introducing this bill. I have two questions to put to him.

The member raised the issue of sexual offences. What he is proposing is not just keeping a mandatory minimum but expanding it from 90 days to one year on summary conviction. Courts have already held in the country, in Yukon and Nova Scotia, that this has been found unconstitutional.

My second point is that I am asking him, given his long analysis and deep thought on the issue of mandatory minimums, what his position would be with respect to our position on this side of the aisle, that mandatory minimums contribute to the overrepresentation of people in the criminal justice system. It does not serve victims and, particularly, it does not serve Black and indigenous Canadians.

Given that reality, would the member be moved to be supportive of Bill C-22, which is currently before the House?

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Madam Speaker, I will try to address most of what the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice spoke about. I would start with what he ended with, and that is mandatory minimums and overrepresentation of certain groups within the criminal justice system. That is a conversation that needs to be had, but on the crime of sexual exploitation, that is a crime in which there is a power imbalance and in which the offender is a person who is in a position of power over the victim. They are not a vulnerable population. It is the victim in these cases who is in the position of a vulnerable population.

The second is the point of mandatory minimums more generally. Courts and Parliament have recognized that certain crimes need to be condemned, and we need to take strong actions on them. This is the case with violent crimes and sexually based crimes. In this case, I would argue this is one that would withstand a charter challenge due to the serious nature of the actions undertaken by offenders against vulnerable populations, including young people and persons living with disabilities. They are the vulnerable populations that we need to be defending with this legislation.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.

I have a very specific question for him. The amendments he wants to make to the Criminal Code target offences that, depending on the severity of the charge, the Crown can choose to prosecute as a criminal offence or an offence punishable on summary conviction.

However, the bill suggests that the one-year mandatory minimum sentence remain the same in both cases even though a criminal offence and an offence punishable on summary conviction differ in both nature and severity. I would like my colleague to comment on that.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question.

I apologize, but I will answer the question in English because it is harder for me to answer in French.

The member does raise an important question about summary versus indictable offence. If I understood the question well, it was whether summary conviction and indictable offences would have the same mandatory minimum sentence and whether that would be appropriate, given that they be slightly different crimes. I would argue that given the seriousness of these crimes, whether it is on summary conviction or an indictable offence, the minimum sentence of one year would be appropriate for either summary conviction or otherwise, given the seriousness of the power imbalance of an offence involving a vulnerable population.

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

Madam Speaker, the problem I have with mandatory minimums is that they tend to be one-size-fits-all, no matter the circumstances or the information on each case, and I am worried about them taking away from judicial discretion. I was wondering about his thoughts on the sentencing principles that already exist in the Criminal Code under section 718.2, which do require a judge to take into account whether there was a position of authority or trust and whether a person was under the age of 18 years. These allow judges to significantly increase penalties based on the circumstances of the case.

I believe what he is trying to tackle in this bill is already allowed for in the Criminal Code, and I am wondering why he does not agree with that.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Madam Speaker, the member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford does raise an important point about sentencing guidelines, which are already there, and I do agree with that to a degree, but we have seen cases, including one that happened in my riding, where that was not the outcome. There was no sentence. It was a monetary fine and probation for the individual I have seen in this riding. I would say that when there is a serious crime we need to, as Parliament, stand up and say that this is not appropriate.

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

Madam Speaker, it is safe to say that parliamentarians reflect their constituents' beliefs. I think that we would find consensus that hideous crimes are being perpetrated in society far too often. Sexual offences, in particular against children and persons with disabilities, are indeed hideous crimes. They cause so much damage to our society.

An occurrence can take place over hours. Often, more than the hours of the actual incident, the effects could be prolonged for days and in incidents of captivity they could be much longer than that. People seem to forget that the consequences of being a victim of such a crime go far beyond the time of the incident: they stay with the person for the rest of their lives.

It is important that we as legislators understand and appreciate the impact these types of crimes have on victims, their family members and friends. Having that appreciation and understanding puts us in a better position to take action.

I used to serve on a justice committee. I want to bring two perspectives from that. It was a youth justice committee, and I was its chair for a number of years. We had this discussion about minimum sentencing, or minimum dispositions, as there was an increase of people who were stealing cars. People on the committee said that no matter who the person was who stole a car, we needed to ensure that youth had a minimum sentence or an assessment where he or she, most often he, would have to fulfill x, y and z requirement plus whatever else they would have to assign. Other members of the committee had a different approach, saying that we needed to allow the honorary probation officers dealing with youth some discretion.

As a justice committee, we never dealt with sexual offences, but the principle of judicial discretion was something on which we had a very healthy discussion. When the committee first formed, some individuals with the hardest attitudes toward ensuring there were the toughest consequences came to believe that minimum sentences were not what we should be putting into place.

I say this because I believe that, if we were to canvass our constituents, everyone would agree that sexual offences, in particular against children and persons with disabilities, upset people significantly. We have a difficult time understanding why an offender would do such a thing and the initial reaction is to put them in jail and throw away the key. We, as legislators, understand and appreciate that is not necessarily the answer.

Yes, there needs to be a consequence, an element of punishment, but we also need to look at the bigger picture. That is not to say, as the introducer of the motion has put on the record, that former Liberal ministers have come forward and said yes to minimum sentences for certain types of crimes, this being one of them, nor does it mean we have to outright oppose all minimum sentencing; what it does mean is that we need to give special consideration to the types of things that are happening in our communities.

Whatever members think of minimum sentencing, as my New Democratic friend pointed out, they should think of judicial independence and the laws we have in place today. The Criminal Code covers most of everything, if not everything. I have not gone through the details of the private member's bill that has been provided, but it seems to cover, in one fashion or another, what we are having to face today. We might find the odd example that would challenge it to a certain degree, but I think we have to be very careful not to recognize the importance of judicial discretion. That is part of the fear I have. When we talk about systemic racism and look at incarceration and the role it has played, at least in part, it would be irresponsible for us as legislators, any time we talk about minimum sentencing, to not take into consideration the impact it may have on other issues where there could be a correlation. I find some crimes more upsetting than others.

From a personal point of view, the issue of exploitation is something I do not think we could ever do enough about with respect to discussions, debates and looking at ways we can combat it. I do not believe it has been getting better over the last number of years or back over the last decades. In part, that is because of the amount of exploitation taking place on the Internet today. I applaud the ministers of the government who I know have been doing a tremendous amount of consulting on this issue. We have a Prime Minister with a teaching background, who understands the importance of young people and making sure they get the best chances at life. When we start talking about sexual exploitation and those who are vulnerable in our society, we need to be there so we can provide that extra level of protection. There are things we can do. I believe the Government of Canada has been very proactive on that file.

I am hopeful we will see a downturn. Some of what we hear as a direct result of the pandemic on the issue of sexual exploitation is making a lot of people nervous, because we know the cost of one offence is horrendous, not to mention the impact it has on the victim. The costs go far beyond the dollar value. The bill talks about how we want—

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

We have to proceed to the next speaker.

The hon. member for Saint-Jean.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-219, which would amend the Criminal Code to increase sentences for offences of sexual exploitation and to add as an aggravating circumstance the fact that the victim is a person with a disability for the purposes of sentencing.

I agree with all members, or at least I think all of them, that this bill has a noble objective to protect the most vulnerable. I am perhaps a little less comfortable with the method of achieving this goal through increasing sentences and imposing higher mandatory minimum sentences.

Before I begin talking about the bill itself, I want to talk in general about mandatory minimums and revisit a question I have asked the House before about whether these sentences truly act as deterrents. The example I cited was the Bloody Code, used in England from the 17th to the 19th centuries. This code imposed the death penalty for such crimes as the theft of an item valued at more than 12 pence, such as a turnip. One might think that the code deterred people from stealing turnips, but that was not the case. Instead of sending people to the gallows for stealing such low-value items, juries instead opted to acquit the offenders, often by underestimating the value of the item stolen. The code did not deter crime, but rather encouraged it. After the imposition of capital punishment for the theft of turnips, more turnips than ever were stolen.

In these modern times, one could imagine that mandatory sentences might now be deterrents for judges, who might be tempted to look for ways to acquit the offender rather than impose a minimum sentence that would be disproportionate to the crime committed. Conversely, if the minimum sentence is very short, one would have to wonder whether it would truly be a deterrent and whether it would simply give judges less discretion.

Before I speak about the different parts of the bill, I will say that at this stage I will not comment on whether it is appropriate to refer the bill to a committee. I believe that the bill raises many questions and I am going to focus on that today. I will then indicate whether I will be voting for or against the bill at second reading. I think that the discussions in this chamber will be very informative and a great opportunity to show the importance of the debates held in the House.

The first of the three aspects covered by Bill C-219 concerns people in a position of authority. Paragraph 153(1.1) of the Criminal Code will be amended to increase the minimum sentence on summary conviction from 90 days to one year. In such a summary conviction, the judge would be limited to handing out a sentence between one year and two years less a day. This would greatly limit the judge's discretion in determining the sentence. Judges' responsibilities go beyond handing down a guilty verdict or an acquittal. Sentencing is also an important part of their job. Their discretion in this case would be severely curtailed.

Another problem is the imposition of the same minimum sentences for crimes deemed indictable offences and for crimes deemed summary offences. Handing out the same minimum sentence for crimes considered to be of different severity raises questions.

Furthermore, this amendment to the Criminal Code may not be constitutional. In 2019, the Court of Appeal of Yukon ruled that the minimum sentence of one year for an indictable offence was unconstitutional. We therefore can expect that the courts will do the same thing with the one-year minimum sentence for an offence punishable on summary conviction. The Nova Scotia Court of Appeal and certain lower courts in other provinces also declared this portion of the law unconstitutional.

The bill's second amendment relates to a person in a position of trust or authority, specifically towards a person with a mental or physical disability. This clause poses the same problem because it too adds a minimum punishment of one year for an offence punishable on summary conviction. We will most likely have the same debate about why the minimum sentence should be the same for an offence punishable on summary conviction as for a criminal offence.

Another problem might be the constitutionality of this mandatory minimum sentence. If we compare this to an article intended to protect other people also considered vulnerable, in this case children under 16 years of age, it is worth remembering that the Quebec Court of Appeal overturned the mandatory minimum sentence in Caron Barrette in 2018. The court declared:

...that the one-year mandatory minimum sentence of imprisonment provided for in s. 151(a) of the Criminal Code is of no force or effect with respect to the appellant, that it is unconstitutional as infringing s. 12 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and is not saved by operation of s. 1 of the Charter.

We might have a constitutionality problem in this case too. Another problem is that subsection 153(1) of the Criminal Code is rarely used because it is not very clear. Unfortunately, it is not a paragon of clarity.

At paragraph 184 of the decision in R. v L.C., the Hon. Erick Vanchestein says:

This provision was not subject to specific doctrine or jurisprudence in respect of its interpretation.

In other words, it is rarely used. He goes on to say:

It would appear from the parliamentary debates and proceedings surrounding the enactment of this provision that this offence was created at the request of organizations representing [persons with disabilities] who were seeking to obtain specific protection for vulnerable persons with disabilities, more specifically, the caregivers.... For this provision to be meaningful it necessarily needs to be complementary to the provisions with which it forms part.

The important paragraph is the following:

The court finds that the protection targeted by this provision is sexual abuse that takes advantage of the victim's disability, which is not the case here.

In that case, the victim was deaf.

In the end, the person was acquitted of the charge under section 153, because it needed to be proven that they had taken advantage of the victim's disability. What Crown prosecutors often do is use other sections that are clearer and easier to convict on. That makes section 153 ultimately useless, because it is not clear enough or makes it too hard to meet the burden of proof.

The last part of the bill calls for an amendment in the context of the commodification of sexual activity. It states that the court shall “consider as an aggravating circumstance the fact that the victim of the offence is a person with a mental or physical disability”.

We can expect this to create some discrimination in the hiring of sex workers. That is the absurd part of it. For instance, clients would be more likely to be criminally charged if they used the services of a sex worker with a disability that does not make her otherwise vulnerable than if they went to her colleague who does not have a disability. This would be a rather strange side effect of a very literal reading of the clause.

Furthermore, section 718.04 of the Criminal Code already sets out aggravating factors for offences against vulnerable persons. It reads:

When a court imposes a sentence for an offence that involved the abuse of a person who is vulnerable because of personal circumstances — including because the person is Aboriginal and female — the court shall give primary consideration to the objectives of denunciation and deterrence of the conduct that forms the basis of the offence.

Therefore, there is already a directive for judges that a harsher sentence must be imposed when the victim is someone who is considered vulnerable.

There are a number of questions that could be asked about this bill. We could look at everything that was done following the Bedford case, which decriminalized the provision of sexual services. Should we be cracking down on clients or focusing on pimps, for example?

There is a lot to debate. I look forward to following this issue and hearing the parliamentary debates on it.

[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.

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

Madam Speaker, I agree with much of what the member said.

I followed the committee proceedings closely on this bill and noted with great respect the interventions of the Bloc member for Rivière-du-Nord. He also expressed some concerns about the definition as it was amended. It was not only Conservative members, it was also the Bloc member on the committee. He voted against an amendment from the NDP to add in gender expression. Here is what the member of the Bloc said at committee:

Let's say that, in the morning before going to school, an eight-year-old boy decides to wear a dress. His mother might say yes, or she might say no. Either way, if we use that definition, it would be a criminal offence for a mother to tell her son that she does not want him to wear a dress and to force him to wear pants. That's the definition we are about to adopt, and I see a problem with it.

That is a direct quote from the Bloc member for Rivière-du-Nord, who represents the Bloc on that committee, who had concerns about the definition and who listened to the witness testimony. The same Bloc member proposed a motion to delay clause by clause so the written briefings submitted could be reviewed by the committee.

I want to ask the member if she is in alignment with her Bloc colleague in terms of having some concerns about the reference to gender expression and other aspects of the definition and if she shares her colleague's concern about the lack of consideration of written briefs.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his question.

We have stated, explained and spelled out what is included in the proposal we are studying today several times. The role of a committee is to go into detail and analyze the bill from top to bottom in order to be able to take action. As I clearly stated in my speech, we must make it illegal for parents and religious organizations to force individuals to undergo conversion therapy.

That is the least we can do. For now, it is clear that this practice must stop. We read it again earlier. Once the individual reaches adulthood, they will be able to make a voluntary choice. It is clearly indicated in the bill that that is the offence.

The other members are trying to stretch things out so that the bill dies on the Order Paper—

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

Order. The hon. member for Vancouver East.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Madam Speaker, there is no question that conversion therapy is an attempt to fix members of the SOGI community, and it is wrong. New laws alone will not be sufficient to repair the damages of the past from conversion therapy nor to combat the hate that underlies these programs.

Would the member agree that the government needs to fund capacity building within the SOGI community, so these challenges can be addressed by the community?

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

Madam Speaker, it is clear that, once this bill is adopted, we must start thinking about reparation for the sins of the past, because time is running out.

Our obligations should already have been recognized, as they were in Quebec. We spoke about the pandemic and mental health issues. Some 47,000 individuals were subjected to conversion therapy. As a society, we must make sure that these individuals are well and happy. I completely agree with my colleague.

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

Madam Speaker, one of the interesting things is that the Bloc member who was on the committee at the time raised the concern that he did not feel the definition was clear enough. He said:

For example, I personally have not seen much done to clarify the proposed definition in clause 5 of the bill. I'm really concerned about that definition. All of the witnesses we heard from, regardless of their background, agree that the definition is unclear. Obviously, we all need to think about it.

When I had my practice, lawmakers were seen as godlike figures. Here, however, I find we are being a bit sloppy by doing a clause-by-clause study of the bill when we have not yet had time to read the briefs, thoughts and comments that members of the public have sent us.

For all these reasons, I suggest that we postpone the clause-by-clause study to a meeting after work resumes in January.

Does the member not agree with her colleague that we should perhaps have more fulsome study, so that all those briefs could be seen at committee?

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

Madam Speaker, as part of our first experiences in this legislature, we realize that some items are proposed in committee and others are added as we go along.

However, we must never forget where we started and why. The aim was to bring in an amendment that would make it an offence for a parent or religious entity to force a minor to undergo conversion therapy under the pretext that that is not the way they were born and they are possessed by a demon. Come on.

While sitting on the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics, I noticed that, whether we are discussing Pornhub or conflict of interest, the door is always wide open.

We must not forget that when we procrastinate bills die on the Order Paper and, unfortunately, we do not get anywhere. I am ashamed to be in this Parliament and let this bill die on the Order Paper.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Laurentides—Labelle for her excellent speech, which was extremely humane and extremely moving, as always.

The leader of the Bloc Québécois said that the sooner LGBTQ2 individuals are given all the respect they deserve, like everyone else, the sooner we can do that, the sooner we should.

The bill is now at third reading. How does my colleague explain this sense of urgency?

We are in June, and this parliamentary session will soon end. We know that the Liberals are very eager to call an election. The proof is that they invoked closure to pass a bill to reform the Canada Elections Act.

Does my colleague feel this sense of urgency? Does she think the bill will be passed during this Parliament?

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

Madam Speaker, I could not agree more. If we want to show the respect and compassion of previous years, we need to act now. We are in the middle of an end-of-session blitz, we can do it; it is a matter of political will.

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

Madam Speaker, I am very happy to be speaking to Bill C-6 today, finally. Here we are more than a year after its introduction with the final version of Bill C-6 before the House for a final debate and vote. That is more than one year longer that this hateful and harmful practice has been allowed to go on.

Hopefully the fact that the bill has been before the House for debate has helped shine a light on the dark places where this so-called therapy takes place, as this is one practice that cannot stand much light. In the interim, many provinces and local governments have enacted bans of their own.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would like to hear what my colleague is saying, but there is a problem with the interpretation.

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

The translation is not working. Let us try again.

The hon. member for Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke.

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

Madam Speaker, I will start over, assuming the clock has been stopped.

I am very pleased to rise to speak to Bill C-6 today, finally. Here we are more than a year after its introduction with the final version of Bill C-6 before the House for a final debate and vote. That is more than one more year longer that this hateful and harmful practice has been allowed to go on.

Hopefully the fact that this bill has been before the House for debate has helped shine a light on the dark places where this so-called therapy takes place, as this is one practice that cannot stand much light. In the interim, many provinces and local governments have enacted bans of their own.

Hopefully this debate will conclude today so we can proceed quickly to a vote and send the bill to that other place, even though the other place has an unfortunate history of killing bills about sexual orientation and gender identity through delay.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am sorry to interrupt my fellow comrade, but I think he had a unanimous consent motion that he was hoping to move at the beginning of his speech. I wanted to see if the member was going to do that.

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

The hon. member for Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. NDP whip for reminding me that I have to ask for consent to share my time with the member for North Island—Powell River.

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

Does the member have unanimous consent?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

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

The hon. member for Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke.

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

Madam Speaker, conversion therapy has been found by all experts to be fraudulent and harmful. It is not sanctioned by any professional organization and many Canadians are surprised this practice still goes on in Canada. However, we heard powerful testimony at the justice committee, documenting the fact that conversion therapy still took place in both what I would call its traditional form, focusing on sexual orientation, and in a new form that argues that those who are transgender, non-binary or gender diverse ought to be talked out of their personal identity.

The New Democrats and almost all members of the SOGI community have long been calling for a complete ban on conversion therapy in all its forms. What we have before us, after amendments at the committee, is a bill that comes close to a complete ban, as close as possible without actually being one.

The Minister of Justice has repeatedly said that the reason for not going ahead with a complete ban is his fear that it would not survive a charter challenge on the basis that it would restrict the rights of consenting adults to freely choose to subject themselves to conversion therapy.

There is an alternative argument that says a complete ban would indeed likely survive a charter challenge because there are strong legal precedents that argue that no one can actually consent to being defrauded or injured. The clearest parallel in the Criminal Code is the case of fight clubs, which remain illegal, as one cannot consent, no matter how freely, to being physically injured. Therefore, if the evidence is undeniable that conversion therapy is inherently fraudulent and harmful, the same legal principles should apply.

What is banned in Bill C-7? The strongest provision in the bill is a complete ban for minors, including the offence of transporting a minor outside the country to undergo conversion therapy, which is a much more common practice than most Canadians would assume.

Growing up in a society that remains heteronormative and intolerant of any challenges to the binary cisgender norms is challenging enough for queer youth without ending up being pressured into therapy whose goal is to get them to deny who they actually are.

Though Bill C-6 does not institute a complete ban on conversion therapy, it will establish an effective ban on the practice as it prohibits generally what might be called the business practices around conversion therapy. This means there will be a ban on charging for, or profiting from, conversion therapy and a ban on paid or unpaid advertising of conversion therapy.

Working together at committee, we did strengthen Bill C-6, although the Conservatives are acting like no amendments actually took place at committee. One of the most important improvements was to alter the original language in Bill C-6, which proposed banning conversion therapy “against a person's will”. This was vague language with no parallel elsewhere in the Criminal Code of which I know. My amendment was adopted to change this language to a ban on conversion therapy “without consent”.

Using the language of without consent clearly situates the ban on conversion therapy within the well-understood and well-developed Canadian jurisprudence on what does and does not constitute consent. I was disappointed that a second amendment, which sought to spell out the specific limitations on consent that would apply in the case of conversion therapy, was defeated. The testimony we heard from survivors about the kinds of duress they were almost universally under to subject themselves to conversion therapy would clearly obviate any claim of consent.

The second important improvement made at the justice committee was to expand the scope of the definition of conversion therapy to include gender identity and gender expression. This makes the language in Bill C-6 consistent with our existing human rights legislation and the hate crimes section of the Criminal Code as amended by Bill C-16. This is important as the new forms of conversion therapy I mentioned are directed at transgender and gender diverse individuals and at the attempt to get them to deny their gender identity under the guise of helping individuals “adjust”.

A third change to Bill C-6 made at committee was to add to the definition of what was in effect a for greater certainty clause stating what was not covered in the ban, something the Conservatives say they wanted and something they are certainly ignoring as it is now in the bill.

Bill C-6 now makes clear that it does not ban good faith counselling. Let me cite the specific definition again, as I did in my question earlier, as it could not be more clear. 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.” That is specifically in the bill.

Opponents of Bill C-6 continue to insist that the bill will somehow prevent conversations between parents and children or pastors and their faithful on the topics of sexual orientation or gender identity. There is no truth to this claim. The only way these conversations could be captured is if, in fact, they were part of a sustained effort to change someone's sexual orientation or gender identity that constitutes a practice or service under the bill. It would be a giant stretch to characterize efforts of parents or pastors to “try to talk their kids out of it” as a practice, service or therapy.

The vehemence of the debate on Bill C-6 around gender identity certainly reflects the fact that trans and gender-diverse Canadians face the highest levels of discrimination of any group in Canada. That discrimination results in high levels of unemployment, difficulties in accessing housing and high levels of violence, including the murder of two transgender Canadians in the last year alone, just for being trans.

During hearings in committee there was a wave of hatred expressed toward me as an individual on social media, which showed me the level of hostility generally toward trans and gender-diverse people in our country. The insults thrown at me ranged from interfering with parental rights to supporting mutilation of children and, most absurdly, being in the pay of big pharma, apparently because transitioning involves hormones. That is a particularly ill-informed charge against someone who has fought all my time in public life for reducing the power of pharmaceutical companies through shorter patents, expanded use of generics, bulk-buying to bring down costs and, ultimately, the establishment of universal pharmacare.

Those insults also included direct threats of violence directed at me, but, again, I remind myself that the hatred I saw, and will inevitably see again after this speech today, provided only a small glimpse into what transgender and gender-diverse Canadians face every day of their lives.

Many of those objecting to the bill have used what I call a “false detransitioning narrative”. To be clear, I am not rejecting the validity of the stories of individuals who may have chosen to detransition, but opponents of Bill C-6 have adopted those stories to construct a false narrative about the number who choose to detransition and their reasons for doing so. Professional, peer-reviewed studies from the U.K. and Scandinavia tell us that very few transgender people actually later detransition. Both major studies cite a number of fewer than five in 1,000 who detransition, and, even more interesting, both studies report that most of them say they detransitioned not because it was not right for them, but because they did not get support from family, friends and the community they live and work in.

The implication by critics seems to be that there is something in this bill that would prevent counselling concerning detransition, when this is absolutely not the case. Using the detransition narrative to detract Bill C-6 is false, in that I am pretty sure this argument often actually has nothing to do with the ban on conversion therapy being proposed; it is an argument about the very validity of transgender Canadians.

Let me say that I find these arguments against the bill, and being at my most charitable, are at a minimum parallel, if not identical, to those that continue to cause harm to trans and gender-diverse Canadians, and they indicate why we need this ban. At some point, some might ask why have a bill at all, when CT is universally condemned as fraudulent and harmful. Again, as many members have pointed out, studies show that literally tens of thousands of Canadians have been subjected to this practice.

It is important to listen to the voices of survivors of conversion therapy; only then can we understand the need for this bill. Once again, I want to extend personal thanks to two survivors, Erika Muse and Matt Ashcroft, who spent a lot of time with me trying to give me a better understanding of the horrors they faced and their own challenging roads to recovery.

On a personal note, let me say again that I have seen progress in my lifetime for some in the sexual orientation and gender identity community, but we have a much longer road to follow when it comes to those who are transgender and gender-diverse. What a ban of conversion therapy really says is this: we know it is impossible to change someone's sexual orientation, gender identity and expression, and trying to change or repress one's identity is harmful. Let's stop literally torturing young Canadians for being who they are. Let's put an end—

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

I will have to ask the hon. member to continue his points in the questions and comments.

The hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague from Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke for his championing of the rights of the LGBTQ+ two-spirit community. I am horrified as he shares with us the abuse he has experienced for standing up for trans rights.

The only problem I have with Bill C-6 is why we call a practice that is clearly torture something called “therapy”. Is it not time to stop calling residential schools “schools” and call them what they were? Is it not time to call what is called “conversion therapy” abuse and torture?

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

Madam Speaker, I could not agree with the member more. I thank her, since I ran out of time in my speech, for drawing the parallel to what happened at residential schools. I, of course, share the horror and the need for us to act resolutely on the news that we heard from Kamloops this week.

All the professional studies show that conversion therapy results in depression, self-harm, suicide attempts and many actual deaths by suicide. There is no science behind this practice, there is no reason to continue to call it therapy and that is one of the reasons it should be banned.

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

Madam Speaker, I would put two points to my colleague. One is around the definition of what constitutes a practice. The word “practice” is not defined in the Criminal Code. One of the issues in outstanding ambiguity and why people are concerned about how this would impact private conversations about questions around sexuality, for example, is that the reference to a treatment, practice or service could include things that are not in a pseudo-therapeutic context.

I also want to ask the member why he opposed allowing for all of the written briefs to be reviewed before clause by clause began. Should we not, as legislators, have the humility to recognize that there may be new information in those written briefs and it is worth—

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

The hon. member for Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke.

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

Madam Speaker, this question from a Conservative is a good example of what Conservatives are doing here. They continually try to muddy the waters by talking about terms and definitions.

It is very clear what this bill aims to ban, and that is sustained efforts to get someone to change or repress their sexual orientation and gender identity. There is no doubt about the purpose of this bill. There is no doubt about what is covered in this bill.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill—Keewatinook Aski, MB]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his trail-blazing work and advocacy on this front.

We all know well, or ought to know well, that transgender people in Canada face some of the highest rates of violence. I am wondering if my colleague could speak to how this bill would be critical in getting at that violent reality that so many transgender people face simply for being transgender, simply for being who they are. I hope all parliamentarians can get behind the notion that we need legislation to allow people to live who they are.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her kind words.

The very fact that so-called conversion therapy is allowed to go on in the country contributes to homophobia, transphobia, biphobia and the very struggles that people face each and every day because it says that they are somehow illegitimate and should change. Making that very clear definition that, as Canadians, we accept people for who they are and we do not try to get them to deny their identity would be an important step forward in combatting homophobia and transphobia.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am here today to speak on Bill C-6, a bill on conversion therapy and the sometimes deadly impacts it has.

I cannot help but take a pause before I start my speech to acknowledge the deep grief and pain across Canada due to finding the 215 bodies of children in a mass grave at a school in our country. Many elders have said to me that the first part of dealing with this is making sure we support those beautiful babies in moving safely to their ancestors' arms, so I am here in the House of Commons wanting to say we see these precious children and that their loved ones are fighting to make sure they are never silenced again. I say, “Please go home to the loving arms of the people there waiting and know we will continue here to do the work that must be done.” We love them, we see them; we are telling them to go home and be surrounded by love.

For too long, Canada has not listened to residential school survivors and to the loved ones of survivors who have told us again and again of the horrific things they witnessed. Value is a key word today. Enough fighting kids in court. They do not get a second childhood. How many indigenous children should lose their childhood? Enough making indigenous communities choose between clean drinking water and other essential needs. Why would anyone be asked to choose one or the other? Enough make indigenous people fight for basic human rights, rights every other Canadian receives.

Enough paternalistic mechanisms so embedded in the departments of Indigenous Services and Crown-Indigenous Relations that indigenous communities continue to be underserved and under-resourced, and self-determination is blocked every step of the way.

The ugliness of our colonial history is hard to hear. However, it is harder to live, so I encourage all non-indigenous people to listen hard and then work toward reconciliation as an ally, which really means following and amplifying the voices of indigenous people and communities in Canada.

I want to thank my granny, Minnie, who went to Lejac Residential School. She came back broken and working hard to build something better. To my amazing family, who works so hard every day to bring the culture back and to share it with the children, I see their work and I am so grateful.

I also want to say to my niece Daisy, who today, after my sister explained why we are all wearing orange, said to her mom, “Please, don't let them take me to residential school” that we are all going to work so hard, baby, to make sure that never happens. What a relief it is that, unlike indigenous parents and family members in the past, we do not have to be arrested or beaten just for the right to protect her.

Now I will go back to Bill C-6, which is such an important bill.

I believe love is love and that our sexuality and gender identity and expression is a spectrum and celebrating everyone on it is a key point of building community and our country. I am also a parent and a grandparent. I remember when I had my first baby and the overwhelming honour I felt at knowing this being was a gift to me, that my job was to do one thing, which was to do my very best every day to love them exactly the way they are. It is the most beautiful practice of parenthood, in my opinion, that of unconditional love.

Sometimes I struggle with my kids. They are themselves, and getting to know them, as they get to know themselves, can sometimes be challenging. When it is hard, I remind myself my number one job is to be their love foundation and that when they go into the world and face the challenges that are there for them, when they look at me they see someone who loves and believes in them.

I often tell my children they are the best part, because for me they are. Grandchildren, well, that is just a whole other level of being a love foundation.

This is what I think of when I speak today about a bill that would specifically criminalize subjecting a minor to conversion therapy, transporting a minor out of Canada for the purpose of conversion therapy, subjecting adults to conversion therapy against their will and the business of conversion therapy aimed at both minors and adults. This would include criminalizing advertising the service and charging for or profiting from the service.

Let me just say I am absolutely horrified anyone has been supported or paid to try to convince any soul that who they are is not okay. Teens who are exploring transitioning are being subjected to body-affirming therapy that attempts to tell them they should love the body they were born with instead of affirming they can be whoever they want to be and feel themselves to be at their core.

Who are we to tell anyone, much less a growing teenager, to accept their body as it is when that teen knows their body does not match their gender identity and they have felt wrong in their bodies their whole lives? Body-affirming therapy is wrong and must be included in this ban on conversion therapy.

The reality is that we live in a culture where hate toward the SOGIE, or sexual orientation, gender identity and expression, community still happens all too often. Young people know who they are but are terrified that, if they say anything, they will lose their love foundation. Some do. Some souls say who they are and they lose their foundation. For those beautiful people, we must keep speaking about this. They need to know that it gets better, and that there are many people out there with love in their hearts waiting to love and accept them.

Any form of conversion therapy, in my opinion, is deadly because it is trying to change someone's wholeness and their being. That is a wound I cannot imagine. Some are told that who they are at their very core is wrong, and are left by the very people who were meant to love them. I want to put on the record that members of the SOGIE community do not need to be fixed, and that it is impossible to change someone's sexual orientation, gender identity or expression through counselling or aversion therapy because there is nothing wrong with them. We know that these attempts at conversion therapy, which are really just torture, and any kinds of attempts to alter a person's sexual orientation, gender identity or expression are harmful. All acts of homophobia and transphobia lead to depression, social isolation, self-harm and even death by suicide.

An earlier speaker on this bill said that the SOGIE community is resilient. Despite the hate in the world, this community is resilient. I have seen this. The many annual Pride events in my riding are a great example. They are loving and powerful. I am so grateful for this. I want to stop the hate in Canada that this community has to be resilient against.

I hope that by getting this bill through the House and the Senate we shut down this horrific practice that harms people so deeply. I hope we all work toward finding love for one another. Life is beautiful, but it is also hard. Who someone is should not mean they have to build up another level of resilience or layer of armour to simply exist in the world. Nothing in this bill affects the ability of parents to discuss questions of sexual orientation, gender identity or expression with their children. It simply does not stop the conversations.

The “what if” argument I am hearing from the Conservatives is disappointing. What I would say is this. What if we lose one more member of the SOGIE community to suicide because they are being taught that who they are is not okay? I want to lean into that fear and work toward saving lives, because to me those lives are more precious and more important than fear. For me, this is a bill that says Canada is beginning to say no to anyone who is making money from or providing conversion therapy.

Recently, I was able to participate in a virtual event to recognize the International Day Against Homophobia, Transphobia and Biphobia hosted by the member for Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke. I am so grateful for his leadership and hard work on this file. I was able to ask how to be the best ally I could. I will always remember what Brian Chang said. He said that people should advertise when they are allies. They should not just think about it: They should make sure they do all they can to make sure that the people who need to know do not have to ask. I have done my best to be that kind of ally: one who is not passive, but who reaches out and does the work as much as possible. I will always look for more input because I know that we can always do better.

It is hard to recognize that we still live in a world that is not safe for the SOGIE community. This was amplified even more in my riding in December of 2020, when a young person put up a website and followed up with an art exhibit at the Comox Valley Art Gallery. Mackai Sharp had the great bravery to share the story of homophobia he experienced in his community. He named his project “Kill Yourself”. I hope we all take a breath when we hear that.

Hate is a message that tells people who they are is not okay and that they do not belong. I want to continuously work toward a Canada that stops homophobia, biphobia and transphobia. I want a Canada that says clearly, “Love is beautiful. You matter. Your identity matters. Your sexuality matters. Your pronouns matter. Who you are matters.”

[Mario Beaulieu, Bloc, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to get the member's opinion. Earlier, her NDP colleague said that the bill did not completely ban conversion therapy, which will remain legal for consenting adults. The bill prohibits forced conversion therapy for minors, as well as the advertising and marketing of such therapy, among other things.

Could my colleague tell me whether she thinks that the bill should have gone farther and completely banned conversion therapy?

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Madam Speaker, I think this bill goes forward to make sure that conversion therapy is no longer allowed. We need to continue to fight this and make sure there is no misinterpretation. We have to watch for that, because one of the challenges we see is that so many things are happening behind closed doors that should not be. Whenever a person is told that who they are is not okay and is made to feel less about themselves, we should always stand up and say that is not okay.

I agree that if people want to ask questions and want to have a conversation with a trusted person about things they are thinking about, as long as they are supported, it is something totally different from conversion therapy. I thank the member so much for his question. When we address any issue of groups that have been oppressed and harmed, we must always question and always know that the fight must continue.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for the many important things that she said, many of which I agree with.

I want to follow up on a question I had asked her colleague on the issue of the submission of written briefs. I asked him a two-part question and we only got to the response on the first part of it.

Many stakeholder groups submitted written briefs to the committee, and many of those briefs were given to members only on the day of. It was the contention of the Bloc member, and one I agreed with, that by refusing to delay clause by clause in order to allow it to look at these written briefs, the committee did not show much respect for the work of people who had studied the bill and submitted suggestions. Given that the government did not call this legislation for another five months, there would have been sufficient time for the committee to look at those briefs.

Why did the NDP vote against reviewing the many written briefs that were submitted before proceeding with clause by clause? There are many details in this bill. There might be good information about how things could be refined, expanded or adjusted in some way.

Why did the NDP not want to have those written briefs considered?

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Madam Speaker, I will remind the member that amendments were made to the bill that clarified some of the concerns brought forward. I would say it has been unfortunate how slowly this bill has moved through the House, largely because of Conservative interruption and Liberal interruption. People of the SOGIE community are dying because of these terrible practices. It is not okay, in Canada, to tell anyone that who they are is not okay. They have a right to exist and they have a right to exist safely. This bill starts that process in a meaningful way. We must get it to the next steps.

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

Madam Speaker, I believe that the government has prioritized this legislation. We have had a substantial number of pieces of legislation related to the pandemic and the budget, yet we want to see Bill C-6 pass.

Can the member provide her thoughts on how important it is to get opposition parties not only to speak, but also to take into consideration the passage of this important legislation?

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Madam Speaker, I absolutely agree with the member that we must get this through the House as soon as possible. Saving lives is important.

[Élisabeth Brière, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Economic Development and Official Languages (Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec)]

Madam Speaker, I would like to inform the House that I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Winnipeg North.

This afternoon, I am very pleased to be able to speak to the bill that is before us today. It is a very relevant and important bill, which, without exaggeration, has the potential to save lives.

I feel very strongly about Bill C-6, an act to amend the Criminal Code with regard to conversion therapy. My son Nicolas is a PhD student in chemistry. He likes to play sports, sail and do all sorts of other great things. These are the traits that characterize him and set him apart from others. My son is also gay. I can say that I am proud to live in a society and a country that does not characterize people based on their sex, gender or sexual orientation. This bill deals with a subject that is very personal to me and so my emotions may get the better of me during my speech.

Nevertheless, in the next few minutes, I will attempt to illustrate why Bill C-6 is an excellent bill, especially why it is truly essential, and why it is, in my humble opinion, high time we legislate on this issue.

For a long time, homosexuality was considered immoral, deviant and even criminal. Some still hold those views today, and I will refrain from citing some truly appalling speeches heard recently in the House on this subject. Some people think that homosexuality is not genetic. They believe it is caused by a trauma, the influence of an evil spirit, or a disorder linked to gender identity. Others believe that homosexuality is a choice, and therefore it can be changed, or that it is a mental disorder. There are those who would argue that it is a sin that must be resisted or a demon that needs to be exorcised.

Historically, many methods have been employed to punish or cure homosexuality: riding a bike to the point of exhaustion, applying electrodes, administering chemical substances, or psychoanalytic therapy.

Conversion therapy started to emerge in the 1990s. Let us be clear about what conversion therapy is. Conversion therapy aims to change an individual's sexual orientation to heterosexual, specifically in order to reduce or repress non-heterosexual attraction or sexual behaviours, or to change an individual's gender identity to match the sex he or she was assigned to at birth.

Sexual reorientation practices aim to silence the individual's diversity in favour of a specific sexual orientation, namely heterosexuality. Framing sexual orientation as a choice within a binary system is, in the end, just another argument used to legitimize the homophobic nature of sexual reorientation practices.

How can conversion therapy still exist in 2021, after great advances like legalizing gay marriage and making it possible for same-sex couples to adopt? That is why we need to legislate on this issue.

What does this bill really do? Our colleagues across the aisle have raised a number of concerns about the bill, which is why it is important to set the record straight. If passed, the legislation would prohibit conversion therapy for minors and make it illegal to transport a minor outside of Canada for such therapy. It would also make it illegal to subject adults to conversion therapy against their will.

Lastly, the bill makes it illegal to profit from or advertise conversion therapy.

I want to send a clear message to my colleagues. We must vote with full knowledge of the facts. Private conversations between a parent and child, or between two people, are not and will not be prohibited. Supporting someone who is genuinely questioning their sexual orientation is legitimate. However, encouraging these individuals to repress their same-sex attraction is not the right solution. Instead, they should be supported in fighting the homophobia they may have internalized. That is why we introduced Bill C-6.

Conversion therapy is based on the false premise that an individual's sexual orientation and gender identity and expression can and must change to conform to an extremely narrow and outdated view of what is “natural” or “normal”.

Despite the decriminalization and depathologization of homosexuality, there are still quite a few organizations that provide treatments to “heal” homosexuality. Those who carry out rites, prayers or exorcisms generally do not do so openly. They say they deliver or liberate people from the demon of homosexuality.

The evidence collected has exposed situations where people are forcibly confined, assaulted and experience outright physical and emotional abuse. Furthermore, it has been shown that parents fail to ensure the safety and development of their children by encouraging them to participate in practices of sexual reorientation because they knew that third parties could emotionally and physically mistreat them.

Several experts, including psychiatrist Richard Montoro, have stated that providing conversion therapy is tantamount to homophobia and is a serious threat to health and fundamental rights. This type of therapy has cognitive and social consequences and can lead to anxiety, depression and even suicidal ideation.

The Pan American Health Organization has said that there is no medical justification for conversion therapy. When I met with them, representatives from organizations in my community, such as GRIS Estrie and Fière la fête, all said that this is an unjustifiable practice that must be denounced and subject to sanctions.

It is absolutely essential that we help people accept their sexual orientation, rather than encouraging them to fight their homosexuality, often in a homophobic and heterosexist social environment.

We cannot change the past, but I hope that this discussion will help advance gender and sexual diversity rights, in the hopes of building a fairer society. It is a positive for someone who is homosexual to say that they are lucky because they are accepted by their family, friends and community, but we can do so much better. The fact that someone even has to say these things is proof of widespread prejudice.

When I read the letter my son wrote to tell us he was gay, I cried. I cried because of the world and its prejudice. I cried because this world, which claims to be egalitarian, categorizes people and still places white heterosexual men on a pedestal.

Consider all of the discrimination packed into those three little words: white heterosexual men. We have seen too many examples of this in the news in recent months. We are living in a society where people who are different are at best marginalized and, at worst, abused and killed. That is why minorities always have to fight to maintain and build on their gains. Despite our efforts to change things, are we still be intolerant of difference?

Let us hope that this vote will prove the opposite. Conversion therapy is a destructive, cruel and deadly practice. It has no place in Canada or anywhere else.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for giving her son, Nicolas, such a wonderful, welcoming, supportive home to live in. She is so right in saying that anyone from the SOGIE community should not have to say that they were lucky because they were raised in such a way; it should just be how our society is.

I would like to give the member a little more time, as the mother of a gay son, to say why bills like this are important to ensuring that this stigma is reduced for all Canadians and that those barriers to equality of opportunity can be removed, because love is love and whom one loves should not determine one's path to equality in Canada.

[Élisabeth Brière, Liberal, Sherbrooke, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for giving me time to speak a little more about Bill C-6.

Every individual should be able to be who they are. We are who we are, the way we were born. Living in an open society where everyone is accepted as they are requires great openness, and that is what makes our communities strong. In my opinion, Canada’s strength is that it accepts difference and diversity.

[Louise Chabot, Bloc, Thérèse-De Blainville, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for her testimony, which says it all. I would also like to thank her for sharing a more personal story with us.

In October 2020, the Quebec government tabled a bill in this respect. The justice minister said that conversion therapy was a barbaric practice, and my colleague corroborated this through the examples she gave.

I would like to ask my colleague a question.

Why does she think such a bill was not passed unanimously?

[Élisabeth Brière, Liberal, Sherbrooke, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her question.

Attitudes change over the years and decades. The fact that LGBTQ2+ communities are more engaged in raising awareness and are more visible in every sphere of life once again demonstrates Canadians’ openness. In my opinion, attitudes had to change if there was to be an equal place for everyone. It is because of ongoing efforts and our way of doing things that we have made it this far. It is high time that we passed Bill C-6 and prohibited conversion therapy in Canada.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the member for her very moving speech. I would particularly like to recognize her for sharing her personal story of her family with us. This bill is so important to ensure that everyone is accepted for who they are. That is what this bill is about.

With respect to conversion therapy, one of the issues that New Democrats want to see is to include body-affirming therapies also banned. Does the member agree with that premise? If so, what work does she think needs to be done to get the government moving in that direction?

[Élisabeth Brière, Liberal, Sherbrooke, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her important question.

The speech I gave this afternoon came from the heart. Where I come from, at home, we all live together and there is no difference between us. Everyone is happy, we love everybody and there are no barriers. That is how life goes.

I will now come back to conversion therapy. To go a little further with Bill C-6, I will say that everyone has the right to live their life as they are. Each individual must be accepted by society the way they are. The more we—

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

Resuming debate.

The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada.

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

Madam Speaker, like others, I do appreciate the words spoken by my colleague, who brings a very important personal perspective. She is right when she makes the assessment that all of us, every person living in Canada and around the world, have the right to be who we are. It is important. That is the reason I support Bill C-6. Conversion therapy is a degrading practice that targets vulnerable LGBTQ2 Canadians in an attempt to change their sexual orientation, gender identity or gender expression. It can lead to a life-long trauma.

The other day, I was listening to my colleague from Don Valley West and I really appreciated what he said. He put out a challenge to those individuals who might be thinking about voting against Bill C-6. I want to repeat verbatim what he said the other day. I would ask, in particular, for members of the Conservative caucus to listen to what he said. The member for Don Valley West said the following:

...I do expect every member in this House to truly wrestle with what it means for them to vote against this bill. If they say they are voting against it as a matter of conscience, then I believe they need to stare deeply into that conscience and ask themselves, “Why would I want to perpetuate an injustice against another human being, a friend, a colleague, a family member, a neighbour, a constituent, anyone who will be hurt by that action; hurt perhaps to the point of death?” Why would they not want to stand with the vulnerable, with the oppressed, with the stigmatized, with the people who need their help the most?

I listened, and I have heard a great deal of debate. For me, it is a human rights issue. I do believe there are many within the Conservative Party who see the true value behind Bill C-6, and I applaud them for whatever advocacy they might be able to provide within their own caucus. It sends a very powerful message to the population as a whole when the House of Commons is united, especially on issues such as this.

Bill C-6 has the potential to have a profoundly positive impact on our society. I would suggest to my Conservative friends, as I suggested to one of my New Democratic colleagues, that the time for passing this legislation is now. There is no need to indefinitely hold off on the passage of this legislation or put into place roadblocks that would see it prolonged.

I believe that the support of the House of Commons of a unanimous nature would go a long way in sending a strong and powerful message that we are all equals. When I listen to Conservatives speak on the bill, it seems to me that they oppose conversion therapy, yet they tend to want to focus on what I would suggest are issues that are not relevant as to why the bill should not pass. The concerns have been addressed.

This bill would not prevent conversations aimed at exploring a person's sexual identity, including conversations with friends, family members, teachers, social workers, psychologists, religious leaders and so on. Members of the Conservative caucus know that. If they did not, then they now do. If they believe that to be the case, they should be very specific as to why they think that because they are planting the seed of doubt.

Conversion therapy is rooted in the wrongful premise that sexual orientation, gender identity and gender expression can and should be changed to fit a narrow idea of what is normal or natural. This is the reason it is so important that, as legislators, we do what we can to ensure there is a sense of equality.

There are measures contained in the bill that are some of the most progressive and comprehensive responses, from a legislative perspective, to conversion therapy in the world. The government is also fulfilling a campaign commitment on conversion therapy, especially with respect to minors, to ensure that no one is subjected to this practice. We will continue to work with other stakeholders, provinces and territories in particular, to end conversion therapy in Canada.

Having been a parliamentarian for a few decades now, I can talk about the impact this has on our communities. I think of the individuals, the people who are put into such a position that the contemplation of suicide is very real and tangible. Sadly, it sometimes takes place, and this is because of outside pressures and people telling them they are not normal.

I believe that is so wrong. At the end of the day, as a community, we need to be accepting of all people. Ultimately, we need to strive to send that message collectively, and that would be a whole lot easier if we were to get support from all members of the House.

When I reflect on past years, there has been significant progress, whether in protests, particularly at the Manitoba legislature, or pride parades, which go beyond major cities and are now in smaller municipalities. However, there is still more to do. Bill C-6 is a strong, powerful step in the right direction.

Based, at least in part, on the correspondence I have received from people expressing concerns, I would remind them of what I said earlier. The bill would not prevent conversations aimed at exploring people's sexual identity, including conversations with friends, family and so on.

Hopefully I have been able to add to the discussion we are having on this. In particular, I call upon my Conservative friends to see the intrinsic value of this legislation and the impact we can have by having one voice on it.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Madam Speaker, first of all, conversion therapy is a human rights abuse, and I support many of the concepts my colleague just put forward. This will be a question from a Conservative MP to a Liberal MP about a provincial NDP policy.

I believe in Manitoba in 2015, the Manitoba legislature put in place policies to end the practice of conversion therapy. Given my colleague is a Winnipeg MP, I was wondering if he would maybe want to expand a bit on what he was talking about and how we can put policy in place to support the rights for equality of opportunity while ensuring other rights are protected.

I was wondering if he wanted to speak a bit about that in the context of the Manitoba provincial legislation and policy.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, for me, what it highlights is something I made reference to, which is that there is still more to do. As my colleague referenced the province of Manitoba, whether it is the provinces, the territories, or even other stakeholders, Ottawa can support, and should encourage, positive steps forward.

I do not necessarily know the details of what the member posed to me in her question. I suspect my daughter would because she is a member of the Manitoba legislature and a very strong advocate on the issue. I would not want to say something and later have her say, “Dad, you got it wrong.”

[Denis Trudel, Bloc, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Madam Speaker, I have been listening to the debate since earlier and there has really been some very touching testimony, including that of the hon. member for Sherbrooke.

I am a bit of a special case. As some people probably know, I was in the arts before I was in politics. It is a more progressive environment than society in general, and in my personal life for the past 30 years, homosexuality and gender acceptance have not been taboo subjects. In my everyday life, I moved beyond the concerns of Bill C-6 30 years ago and I think in more advanced terms.

Since we now seem to be accepting Bill C-6, I would like my colleague to tell us how we could make society more open with respect to all gender issues.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, that is one of the advantages of longevity as parliamentarian over the years. I suggest members take a look at debates that have taken place, and they will find a stronger progressive attitude on this issue as years have gone by. There are some aspects of our society, and the arts community is an excellent example, that have been more open for many years, while there have been others who needed to become more informed and provided with more comfort.

Fortunately, today we are on very solid footing. I would suggest, as I indicated in my comments, there still is a great deal more to do. I emphasize that the national government has a national leadership role to play in working with other stakeholders on this issue.

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

Madam Speaker, I agree with my esteemed colleague that coercive therapy does not work. According to a Nanos poll, 72% of Canadians support a wait-and-see approach for counselling young people, meaning they support the right of parents to delay medical treatment for gender transition until the child is mature enough to understand the repercussions.

Does the member believe parents should preserve that right to guide their young children with a wait-and-see approach, or does he believe children as young as seven or eight have the cognitive ability to understand the impact puberty blockers will have on their health in years to come?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I believe that the legislation has that issue covered. It is good, solid legislation, and the member should truly support it.

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Madam Speaker, I am grateful for the opportunity to rise in the House today and speak to a very difficult issue. It is difficult because it is a very personal issue, one that is close to the hearts and minds of so many Canadians, and I understand why it would be.

Throughout Canada's young history, many LGBTQ individuals have been seriously and irreversibly harmed by the effects of conversion therapy. Many have fallen victim to a practice that is now widely understood to be horrific in nature and rooted in many false and prejudiced views against LGBTQ Canadians.

I am grateful to the constituents of my riding who have respectfully engaged with me on this issue and shared their support for the banning of conversion therapy. To my constituents and to all Canadians, I assure them that I stand with them. Conversion therapy is wrong, and it must be banned.

However, the concern I have with Bill C-6, and the concerns I have heard from literally hundreds of individuals who have reached out to me over the past few months, is that the bill would do much more than just ban conversion therapy. One of the fundamental flaws of the bill, and what is becoming a signature move of this government, is that it does not properly define what type of practices and services the government is specifically trying to ban. As a result, its overbroad definition, one that would criminalize important support services, would, ironically, end up hurting the very individuals we are trying most to protect. Let me explain.

One of the critical supports the bill would ban is the open access to counselling to manage sexual behaviour. Unlike every professional or medical institution in North America, the bill includes in its definition of conversion therapy “a practice, treatment or service designed to...repress or reduce non-heterosexual...behaviour”.

We looked at 152 definitions of conversion therapy around the world, including those of the United Nations and all the governments that have passed a law or bylaw on this issue, and not a single one has used the definition of conversion therapy that is in the legislation before us. None of them included in their definition a ban on sexual behaviour counselling, independent of orientation change. I want to reiterate this because this is important: Not one medical body or government in the world defines conversion therapy this way. None of them include in their definition a ban on sexual behaviour counselling.

This is highly concerning, as the reality is that Canadians may want counselling to help reduce or change all kinds of behaviours, including sexual behaviour, yet the government's definition is written in such a way that it would negatively impact equal access to counselling for LGBTQ individuals, as no counsellor would be allowed to help repress or reduce non-heterosexual behaviour.

For example, an individual struggling with a heterosexual porn addiction and the compulsive desire to have extramarital, heterosexual affairs can go and get counselling to help manage their sex addictions. However, a homosexual individual wanting counselling to manage the same behaviours would not be able to access that support. I think we can all agree that this is discrimination. No individual should be prevented from getting the mental and/or behavioural supports they want.

In fact, most Canadians agree. A Nanos poll conducted earlier this year reported that 91% of Canadians support the right of Canadians to get the counselling of their choice, regardless of sexual orientation. That is 91% of Canadians who do not think that anyone should be discriminated against for getting the help they want. Canadians are raising their voices out of concern on this.

The justice committee heard numerous testimonies and received dozens of expert briefs explaining what they called a “chill effect” where, regardless of any assurances from the federal government, no counsellor would want to help LGBTQ individuals manage their behaviours for fear of breaking the law and sacrificing their careers. They also said that, even if a counsellor was willing to discretely provide such services to the LGBTQ community, these professionals would be difficult to find, given that the bill would also make a criminal of anyone “who knowingly promotes or advertises an offer to provide conversion therapy”. By definition, promotes or advertises would include a word-of-mouth referral by a parent or pastor to a counsellor who provides these services.

This reality of a chill effect on counselling has already caused serious concern to a young man who wrote to my office. In his correspondence, he writes of being happily married to an amazing woman, the love of his life, and of being the father to two beautiful children, with another on the way. He is also attracted to men.

In order to find the most fulfillment in his married life, he decided, with the support of his wife, to get counselling to help him manage his same-sex attractions. He describes that this has been a huge benefit to him and his family. His concern with Bill C-6 is that its scope is so large that it would criminalize the conversations that he freely sought out. He asks why he should be prevented from accessing the help he needs to pursue the sexual identity and the relationships he chooses.

It is critical that the definition in the legislation gets in line with all other medical bodies in North America. It is the role of the government to ban bad practices, but not to decide what identity or behaviours an individual should realize. That freedom should be left to the individual.

I fully support a ban that focuses on harmful medical practices, but not on one that attacks Canadians' freedom to choose their outcomes and goals.

I also want to speak to the very real concern that the bill would cast a dark shadow on free and open conversations between parents, teachers and clergy with their dependents. I know first-hand that children reaching adolescence often have many questions regarding sexuality and gender, but BIll C-6 would basically allow big brother into the home, church, synagogue or mosque, and it would bar parents and spiritual leaders from providing the guidance and direction that children and teens need, especially when they are in such a vulnerable and malleable stage in life.

Parents in particular have rights and responsibilities toward their children, which includes the right to guide and direct them in accordance with their own world view. We would be entering dangerous territory with the legislation, where the government would be telling parents what they may or may not say to their children. While we need to work toward an even-handed approach that protects the rights of the LGBTQ community and protects children from potential abusive therapies, we also need to protect the rights of all Canadians to hold their own perspectives on sexuality and raise their children in accordance with these views.

Again, the justice committee received hundreds of briefs from different faith communities, all expressing this concern. However, I have to wonder if the justice minister has even read a single one of those briefs, because the justice committee sure did not. I was extremely disappointed that instead of taking the time to carefully consider the record number of public submissions, the government decided to rush the legislation through committee study before those briefs could even be translated for consideration. The government did not even bother to go over or elaborate on the evidence received by the committee or the testimonies of the witnesses. Instead, the report suggested a small handful of minor edits that in no way addressed the concerns of those who were opposed to the legislation.

That is why I am grateful to speak today and bring to light the concerns of Canadians that the government refuses to address. That is why we, as Conservatives, put forward an amendment to the legislation that would protect these private conversations. Our amendment even used language pulled directly from the government's own website, but still the Liberals refused to support it.

I have to ask the Minister of Justice this. If he was willing to acknowledge this concern on his website and provide clarification, why was he not willing to do the same on the actual legislation?

He and I both know that an explanatory note on a government website will not convince the courts when this issue gets challenged. Judges do not refer to a website when making a ruling; they are going to look at and use the terms that have been laid out in the legislation we are debating today.

Therefore, before I can support the bill, it needs to make very clear that good faith conversations, where personal views on sexual orientation, sexual feelings, sexual behaviour or gender identity are expressed, such as where teachers, school counsellors, pastoral counsellors, faith leaders, doctors, mental health professionals, friends or family members respectfully provide support to persons with respect to sexual orientation, sexual feelings or gender identity, are protected.

Finally, in my time remaining, I want to touch on what is perhaps the most damaging in this bill, and that is its conflation of gender identity and sexual orientation. These are two very different issues and treating them as the same in this legislation will undoubtedly have many harmful effects on Canadians. While identifying as gay or lesbian at a young age may not have any biological consequence, choosing to identify as transgender does and irreversibly so if chemical and surgical transition follow.

Few young children have the cognitive capacity to state with certainty that they are transgender, yet Bill C-6 makes no distinction between 17-year-olds and seven-year-olds. Any move on the part of parents or counsellors to simply encourage children to be comfortable in their own bodies or to practise watchful waiting could be a criminal offence under this bill.

Is something not out of place here, where parental consent is required to allow children to join a field trip or to get a tattoo, but when it comes to changing their gender, the child has full authority?

I have three wonderful children. They are bright kids, but I can assure members that nine times out of 10 they do not know what is best for themselves. Simply put, that is why my wife and I are their guardians until they are adults and until they have reached an age where they have the cognitive capacity to make permanent and life-altering decisions, such as having a surgical procedure or having certain treatments done that would have a permanent and long-lasting effect on their lives. Therefore, why then would we pass legislation that would allow children as young as five years old to make these irreversible decisions on their own?

It is becoming increasingly clear that the majority of children with questions about their gender identity eventually grow comfortable with their biological gender and their dysphoria desists after some time. That is why watchful waiting has been used by some health professionals and experts as a way to see if what they are experiencing is a temporary phase in the child's life or if the dysphoria persists over a period of time. Watchful waiting allows parents and professionals to understand the particular circumstances of children experiencing gender dysphoria and to give them the opportunity to naturally desist or see if their gender dysphoria persists.

Why encourage watchful waiting? If children want to transition, why stop or delay their ability to do so? The reality is that should children's dysphoria desist and down the road they identify with their biological gender, the path back is not so easy. Many transition therapies have long and irreversible consequences.

Dr. Debra Soh, a neuroscientist and sex researcher, who earned her PhD from York University, wrote the following in an article for Quillette back in 2018. She said:

Therapy that seeks to help gender dysphoric children grow comfortable in their birth sex (known in the research literature as the “therapeutic approach”) has been conflated with conversion therapy, but this is inaccurate. All of the available research following gender dysphoric children longitudinally shows that the majority desist; they outgrow their feelings of dysphoria by puberty and grow up to be gay in adulthood, not transgender.

Children will say they “are” the opposite sex because that’s the only language they have to express to adults that they want to do things the opposite sex does. Cross-sex behavior has also been shown to be a strong predictor of homosexuality in men. Previous research tells us that even children who are severe in their feelings of dysphoria will desist.

However, Bill C-6 as written treats the likelihood of gender-dysphoric children desisting as an impossibility or as somehow wrong.

Ms. Lisa Bildy, a lawyer from the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms, warned the justice committee that the bill as written would force a one-size-fits-all approach to dealing with gender-dysphoric children, rushing to affirm a child's purported gender identity. As she testified, cautious measured approaches are not the danger. Rather, she said:

A free society that supports individual rights, as Canada is supposed to be, would allow parents, children and health professionals to find the best path for each unique child, not have the state preordain that transition is the only permissible option.

If members do not want to hear it from the experts, let us listen to what Canadians think.

The same Nanos poll I referenced earlier found that 72% of Canadians supported a wait-and-see approach for counselling young people who were thinking about changing their bodies with drug treatment. That is a vast majority of Canadians who support a therapeutic approach that this bill would ban.

It is clear to me that most Canadians understand that the push for the immediate affirmation and transition of all gender-dysphoric children is dangerous. If we encourage all children struggling with their gender identity to transition, we run the risk of them eventually undergoing medical procedures that are irreversible without a sober second thought, because such thought would have been criminalized with Bill C-6.

We would do well to learn from the mistakes being made by those countries leading in the progressive charge.

Just last December, the British High Court ruled that children under 16 did not have the capacity to consent to life-changing transition surgeries. This case was the result of a growing number of lawsuits from transitioners who had come to regret their decision to transition at a young age and were now arguing that the government did not properly protect their vulnerability.

In the ruling, the High Court argued that children under 16 did not have the ability to understand the long-term consequences of receiving puberty-blocking drugs and banned them from receiving such treatment. Other European countries are now moving in that direction as well.

In contrast, in Canada, Bill C-6 would effectively prevent young people from receiving help to accept their biological gender, even if they wanted it.

To be clear, the ban in this legislation would allow for any minor to get counselling and support to transition away from their biological sex, but they would not be allowed to get counselling that would help them identify with their biological sex, even if they wanted that help.

We are going down a dangerous path here. It is a path that other countries have already gone down and have come to regret. We need to stand up for all children and all their specific needs. That is what I am seeking to do here in standing up to speak to the one-directional or one-size-fits-all approach of the legislation.

I want to end my speech where I started, by reiterating that I support a conversion therapy ban, however, I do not support the ban as written in this legislation. It is far too broad and will end up hurting the very people we are trying to protect. Everyone has the right to be treated with the utmost dignity and respect, but it is precisely because of this right that we should not criminalize legitimate therapies designed to help patients explore their sexual identity and/or gender identity.

While the government's intentions with this bill may be pure, its attempt to eliminate an evil is fundamentally flawed and will have far-reaching negative consequences. For these reasons, I cannot support the bill as written. I urge the government to go back to the drawing board and get the legislation right for the sake of the LGBTQ community and for all Canadians.

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

The hon. member will have 10 minutes for questions and comments after Oral Questions.

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

[The Speaker, Anthony Rota]

The member for Cypress Hills—Grasslands has 10 minutes remaining in questions and comments.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague for his reflections on the level of engagement we saw from the public with respect to the number of written briefs that were submitted to the committee and the way those written briefs were treated. Obviously, this is an issue on which there is a great deal of agreement in the House. Members want to see a conversion therapy ban.

It is also important that committees do their job and look at the law, the details, the intended and, perhaps, unintended consequences. It is with that in mind that many Canadians and stakeholder groups prepared and submitted written briefs that the committee could take into consideration, yet Liberal and NDP members voted against a Bloc motion that would have allowed for those committee briefs to be received as a part of clause-by-clause consideration.

I wonder if the member could reflect on the fact that all kinds of Canadians and stakeholder groups had constructed input on how to strengthen the legislation and that was completely ignored by the committee because it refused to take the time to look at those briefs.

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Madam Speaker, my colleague is absolutely right. As far as I am aware, record submissions, at least in recent memory, were made to the parliamentary committee. Especially when we are talking about an issue such as conversion therapy, we need to ensure we put in the proper time to review the concerns and opinions expressed at committee through all those briefs.

It would have been absolutely appropriate for the committee to take the time to get the translation on the briefs, to read all the briefs and consider all the statements and evidence put forward before proceeding in the matter before us today that. Once again, the government is rushing things through because it cannot control its legislative calendar.

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Diversity and Inclusion and Youth and to the Minister of Canadian Heritage (Sport)]

Madam Speaker, I have a quote to read from the website of the United Church of Canada, which states that conversion therapy is a widely “discredited practice” of trying to change someone's “sexual orientation or gender identity” based on the premise that being gay or transgender is a disorder and can be cured. In policy and principle, the United Church of Canada affirms that human sexual orientation and gender at least are gifts from God.

I also would like to read from another website of GLA:D Canada, which goes into some detail about how many providers are frequently changing the terminology to avoid detection, that some of these terms can be changed to be harmless at first glance. It also details the reality that young members of the LGBTQ2S community are nearly 8.5 times more likely to attempt to commit suicide when subjected to harmful conversion therapy.

My colleague opposite referred to some legitimate practice. I would like to hear from the hon. member on what a legitimate practice might constitute if it does, in fact, aim to change somebody's gender identity or sexual orientation.

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Madam Speaker, it is really important to just distinguish a few things. When individuals on their own have chosen to seek counselling for a specific issue, then it is incumbent that they get the counselling they are seeking. The way the member put the question is that somehow a counsellor will try to force a specific ideology or position upon an individual, which is not the case.

We want to see a situation where individuals who have a specific problem in their lives and want to receive counselling, trying to get to a specific outcome, that it is set by them, not the counsellor. We have to ensure that their ability to do that is not impacted. There have been concerns this bill would do that.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, it is so unfortunate to hear my colleague make statements and quotes like “sexual behaviour counselling,” as if there is something inherently wrong in an individual living as who they are.

I am curious to know why my colleague violently opposes this fundamental human right and continues to utilize stereotypes and language that certainly do not help with the identity of people in the LGBTQ2IA community? They have much higher rates of suicide as a result of this kind of brutal rejection.

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Madam Speaker, I would like to reiterate that there are a lot of people who have life-controlling issues, such as a person who is constantly cheating on their partner. They might want to seek counselling to help address that issue.

There has been a lot of feedback on this bill from a lot of different groups and organizations saying that a person who is a member of the LGBTQ community might not be able to get support if they are trying to honour their marriage or their union with their partner, and that because they have had an issue with extra-martial affairs, this is going to become a problem.

We want to make sure that they have equal access to counselling that all Canadians would have when they experience a life-controlling issue, such as cheating on their loved one.

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

Madam Speaker, the member opposite mentioned Keira Bell, as well as the chilling effect he believes this bill might have.

I feel that the Keira Bell case in the United Kingdom is a landmark case that we would do well to take a look at. It talks about what has been a common occurrence for some people: A young girl, as she gets older and her body begins to change, feels uncomfortable and dislikes it. She could go through a period of anxiety and depression, and someone could tell her that changing would be the way out. Keira Bell went through changes including a double mastectomy. She deeply regrets it.

Could this member comment on the chilling effect that he mentioned, and how that might impact more cases like Keira Bell's here in Canada with Bill C-6?

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Madam Speaker, it is important that we consider testimony like that. We have heard from many people, including Dr. James Cantor, who is a member of the LGBTQ community.

He talked exclusively about the chill effect that it could have. I am going to quote him to make sure I get it right:

We will end up with clinicians...with a chill effect, simply unwilling to deal with this kind of issue; the service will become unavailable. Without a clear indication of what counts as an “exploration” and exactly what that means, anybody would have trouble going into this with the kind of confidence that a clinician needs in order to help their client.

He clearly points out that we want to make sure that a clinician has the full confidence to help somebody, particularly in that, where they have ability to take the time to make sure it is the right decision for them before they proceed, which in Keira Bell's case did not happen.

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

Madam Speaker, very quickly, does the member believe that we are who we are when we are born, or does he think that our sexual identity is a choice?

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Madam Speaker, the issue of the debate here today is Bill C-6. We want to make sure that people have full and equal access to the same supports around them.

When we look at the bill, we want to make sure that we look at all the different briefs that were submitted before committee so that we have the opportunity to hear what everybody is saying. Because the government was rushing through its agenda, we did not have the chance to consider all the different briefs. We should be able to hear from all the different people who are talking about a lot of different situations that have arisen.

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

Madam Speaker, I hope the hon. members are aware that the British case they have been citing is under appeal and is not settled law in Britain.

My question is for the member. If he is opposed to attempts at conversion therapy, why does he think that trying to repress someone's identity or repress their sexual orientation is an acceptable behaviour?

Where does he find anything in this bill, after it was amended, that would prevent conversations affirming people's choices?

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Madam Speaker, what we want to see is that people have the ability to get the help that they are seeking on their own. We want to make sure they have the ability to get the help they need. That is what we are trying to do here today.

We are trying to raise concerns that Canadians, reaching out to our office, have had. I have heard from hundreds of Canadians who have the same concern. We want to make sure we have equal access to counselling. This bill is creating a situation where one group of Canadians could get certain types of counselling that they chose, and other types of Canadians could not get the counselling they would like to have.

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Kitchener—Conestoga.

Pride Month starts tomorrow in my home province of Ontario, and I can think of no more opportune time to be working on the passage of Bill C-6 in the House of Commons. During Pride, LGBTQ2 Canadians celebrate who they are and their freedom to identify how they wish and love whomever they want, but there remain those who would deny the LGBTQ2 community's basic rights: those who believe that sexual orientation, gender identity or gender expression can and should be changed to fit the narrow idea of what is “normal” or “natural” through the practice of conversion therapy. Bill C-6 would put an end to this.

By criminalizing the practice of conversion therapy, our government is making a statement. We are stating clearly that conversion therapy is degrading, abusive and discriminatory, and the lifelong trauma it causes must come to an end. I have heard this call from my constituents in Parkdale—High Park and from those who believe in equality and in ending stigma right around the country. On the eve of Pride 2021, I hope that all colleagues in the House can agree that a practice based on age-old myths and prejudicial stereotypes about the LGTBQ2 community has no place in Canada.

Now let me turn to the bill itself. It proposes reforms that would comprehensively protect children from the known harms of conversion therapy, and protect Canadians from commercialization of the practice and from being forced to undergo it.

These reforms were inspired by a growing movement against conversion therapy led by survivors and supported by community allies, researchers and experts, many of whom shared their knowledge and experiences with the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights as we studied the bill.

This broad body of work inspired important amendments at committee and highlighted the evidence-based findings, namely that conversion therapy is harmful to people subjected to it. Bill C-6 seeks to stop this affront to human dignity and is an integral part of our ongoing efforts to protect LGBTQ2 individuals.

As many have rightly pointed out, the origins of conversion therapy betray its discriminatory and harmful ends. I want to highlight the testimony of Jack Saddleback. When I was at the justice committee, he poignantly reminded us in his testimony of the history of conversion therapy in Canada. It is inextricably linked to the erosion of indigenous culture and understanding of gender and sexual diversity, and to the suffering of two-spirit youths in residential schools, which is something we have all been thinking about a great deal over the past several days. As we reflect on the harm this bill is intended to prevent, we cannot forget the personal intergenerational trauma endured by two-spirit individuals and the communities for whom “conversion” has often been synonymous with assimilation.

By the 1980s and 1990s, the practice of conversion therapy had become prominent in this country. Even as we adopted the charter in 1982 and strengthened our collective commitment to protecting the fundamental rights and freedoms of Canadians, the inherent dignity and quality of LGBTQ2 youths' and adults' lives continued to be threatened by interventions that vilified and pathologized their differences. These interventions sought to change who they were.

In his testimony and memoir, The Inheritance of Shame, survivor Peter Gajdics described in no uncertain terms the trauma he experienced as a gay man subjected to conversion therapy between 1989 and 1995. He recalled being virtually imprisoned in a “cult-like house” and subjected to prolonged sessions of primal scream therapy, near-lethal doses of medication and “re-parenting” sessions to heal his “broken masculinity”. When none of these methods worked, he was subjected to aversion therapy to suppress his homosexual desires. In his words, these were weapons selected to wage “a war against his sexuality”.

The names, means and methods of conversion therapy have changed over the years, often in an attempt to escape intensifying scrutiny and scientific condemnation. We heard this raised in the questions posed to the member for Cypress Hills—Grasslands. However, the practice's flawed and hateful premise has persisted: that LGBTQ2 persons' sexual orientation, gender identity and gender expression are disordered and must be “fixed” or “rehabilitated” in order for them to live fulfilling and worthy lives. The brief submitted to the justice committee jointly by Dr. Travis Salway and the research team at the Centre for Gender and Sexual Health Equity referenced this point.

In his report entitled, “Conversion Therapy in Canada: A Guide for Legislative Action”, Dr. Wells underscores this point. We also have evidence from the UN Independent Expert 2020 Report, which concluded that conversion practices “inflict severe pain and suffering, resulting in long-lasting psychological and physical damage [and] are inherently degrading and discriminatory. They are rooted in the belief that LGBT persons are somehow inferior and that they must at any cost modify their orientation or identity to remedy that supposed inferiority”.

The UN Independent Expert recognizes that all forms of conversion therapy are dehumanizing and harmful, regardless of whether they purport to make a person heterosexual or cisgender. The report echoes Florence Ashley's warning to Canadian legislators to “reject any attempt to separate trans conversion practices from gay conversion practices”.

As Florence Ashley notes in one of their briefs, “these practices share a history and significant overlap in their contemporary forms. Neither trans nor cisgender LGBQ can be adequately protected without fully protecting the other.”

That is precisely why the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights amended Bill C-6 in order to clarify that the bill has always sought to protect all LGBTQ2 communities.

Survivors and experts told us that the efforts to reduce and suppress the gender expression of transgender, queer and two-spirit people are part of broader interventions designed to “make” them cisgender. The amendments made to the bill's preamble and the definition of conversion therapy to include the mention of “gender expression” reflect the major concerns of all stakeholders.

In response to the experience and warnings of stakeholders with regard to the nature of conversion therapy, the Standing Committee on Justice also amended the offence regarding advertising in order to target the promotion of conversion therapy, namely the promotion of its underlying premise, which is hateful and unscientific.

The proposed offence clearly targets the discriminatory public messaging associated with the advertising of specific conversion therapy services and the promotion of conversion therapy in general.

I am very pleased that the justice committee strengthened this bill, despite many attempts by the official opposition to both delay the bill and stop it. I am particularly grateful to the survivors, advocates and allies who have come forward to inform the process. Through tireless advocacy, they have shed light on a glaring legislative gap in the protection of the inherent dignity and equality of all LGBTQ2 people. It is a gap that has allowed hateful narratives to fester and dehumanizing practices to go unchecked, and a gap that this legislation is carefully designed to fill.

Practices that negate the diversity of the human experience instead of celebrating that experience have absolutely no place in our country. Bill C-6 seeks to end such practices, including by promoting values that are fundamental to what it means to be Canadian: equality, dignity, diversity and respect for difference. Let us join together to further those values in support of Bill C-6.

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

Madam Speaker, I would note parenthetically that the member said the bill was delayed at committee by Conservatives. However, the bill was passed in one meeting of clause by clause on the same day that many written briefs were received from witnesses. Passing the entire bill in one sitting can hardly be described as delaying the bill, especially since a day of debate has not been called for the bill in the House since then: over five months ago.

Our contention is that conversion therapy should be banned, and further that the bill misdefines the practice of conversion therapy so as to ban things that are not conversion therapy. In particular, and uniquely, compared with many other conversion therapy bans around the world as well as at the provincial and municipal levels, the bill includes as conversion therapy any effort, conversation or practice that has as its objective reducing sexual behaviour or non-cisgender expression.

I could think of many situations in which people may have a conversation that involves suggestions around reducing sexual behaviour or modifying sexual behaviour in certain contexts. That is not conversion therapy. A person saying to another person that they should be single for a while and take some time for themselves, or a person saying to another person any number of things about such a thing, is completely different from what conversion therapy actually is.

Will the member at least take seriously the arguments that are being made here that conversion therapy should be banned, but that Bill C-6 is flawed as a proposed law, and that the committee maybe should have read some of the written briefs that were submitted, which might have had some constructive suggestions about how to fix it?

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member opposite for his contributions, and I can assure him that, notwithstanding the efficacy of the clause-by-clause analysis, there were definitely efforts to delay and potentially stop this bill on the part of his colleagues.

With respect to the question he raised, what I would say is that we do take it seriously. We have said repeatedly that we are not aiming to prevent conversations that are aimed at exploring someone's identity, including conversations with friends, family members, teachers, social workers, psychologists, religious leaders and so on. That evidence came through at the committee meetings, which I attended in their entirety.

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

Madam Speaker, the word “promotion” was added at the justice committee to the ban on advertising conversion therapy. Unfortunately, this wording encompasses simple verbal communication, meaning that even private conversation among family members would be included. Because of the government's broad definition of conversion therapy, which is not used anywhere else in the world, private conversations would then fall under their jurisdiction.

First, the Liberals want to regulate the internet under Bill C-10. Now they want to regulate private conversations in Bill C-6. Why does the Liberal government think it can tell Canadians what they can watch, post or discuss in the privacy of their own homes?

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Madam Speaker, I just find this unfortunate. Perhaps it feeds that member's narrative in her own riding to spread disinformation or untruths about what we were doing as a government, but Bill C-10 would not affect individual users of social media, which we have said about 45 to 50 times every day in the House of Commons.

This bill would not regulate private conversations with a parent, a teacher or a religious leader. What it does do is ban a harmful and degrading practice, whether it would be forced on an adult or performed on a minor. Those are important steps in 2021, when we believe that everyone has the right to be free to love whomever they want.

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

Madam Speaker, one of the things that was pointed out at committee is that there were over 300 briefs submitted. The clause-by-clause was finished before the translation was even done on those 300 briefs, so it feels like this bill is being rammed through without due consideration. Many people came and shared their concern around the definition of conversion therapy, particularly around the word “behaviour” being in there.

Is the member not concerned that we have not heard from all Canadians? Is he concerned that we have ignored 300 briefs at committee and we are continuing to push this forward?

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would simply put it to the member opposite that, when briefs are received by the committee, they are also received by Parliament. Those briefs are a matter of public record and are available to all of us for the purposes of informing the debate we are now having. To purport that those briefs have been ignored is categorically false and untrue.

[Tim Louis, Liberal, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would like to begin by acknowledging that I am joining the House from the riding of Kitchener—Conestoga, the traditional territory of the Haudenosaunee, Anishinaabeg and Neutral peoples. I also wish to reflect the historical acceptance of gender-variant peoples and diverse sexual identities within indigenous communities in pre-contact times.

The last two initials that have been added to a long string of letters that we now identify as communities stand for “two-spirited”. The sense that a person can have two spirits and is therefore regarded within a community as exceptionally spiritual is something that I believe we can learn from. In most indigenous communities, two-spirit people are seen, loved and respected as unique individuals.

I rise today in the House for the third reading of this important bill. I am proud to speak in favour of Bill C-6, an act to amend the Criminal Code regarding conversion therapy. The bill proposes to put an end to this damaging practice. The bill sends a clear message to any person or organization advocating or practising conversion therapy that conversion therapy is unacceptable in Canada.

Today, I will be speaking on the importance of this legislation, how this so-called therapy has no place in our society and how we need to protect the health and safety of everyone, most importantly, our youth. I will speak about what the legislation will do, and I will address the fact that this bill will not prohibit conversations or criminalize people's thoughts or opinions. Rather it would ban a practice that says one's identity is wrong and therefore needs to be changed. That is what would be banned. It is critically important that we do so.

Respecting equality means promoting a society in which everyone is recognized as deserving of respect. It is about creating a culture that allows people the freedom to be who they are, to love who they love, to love themselves and to be loved and accepted by not just their families but also by society. That is the message we are sending with Bill C-6.

Conversion therapy is a cruel exercise that stigmatizes and discriminates against Canada's lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer and two-spirit communities. This so-called therapy refers to misguided efforts to change the sexual orientation of bisexual, gay and lesbian individuals to heterosexual; change a person's gender identity to cisgender; or repress or reduce non-heterosexual attraction or sexual behaviour.

It suggests that a sexual orientation other than heterosexual, and that a gender identity other than cisgender, can and must be corrected. This type of discriminatory message stigmatizes LGBTQ2 individuals and violates their dignity and their right to equality. The idea that someone can and should be changed is rooted in homophobia, biphobia and transphobia. Simply put, this is a discriminatory practice that is out of step with Canadian values.

Conversion therapy has been discredited and denounced by professional associations as harmful, especially to children. The Canadian Psychiatric Association has stated it opposes the use of conversion therapy. The Canadian Pediatric Society has identified the practice as “clearly unethical”. The Canadian Psychological Association opposes the practice and notes, “Scientific research does not support [its] efficacy”.

In fact, no organization of health professionals in Canada currently approves the practices of conversion therapy, though provincial health plans will allow for the practice of conversion therapy as part of the public health care system.

People and organizations who do advocate for these kinds of practices believe the misconception that some people are of lesser value because of their non-heterosexual orientation or their non-cisgender identity or expression. The idea that they should be forced to change is deeply misguided.

The bill would define conversion therapy as a practice, treatment or service 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.

I note that Bill C-6's proposed definition of conversion therapy is restricted to practices, treatments or services that are aimed at a particular process that is changing a fundamental part of who a person is. The bill would criminalize causing minors to undergo conversation 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.

I have had many conversations with constituents about their ideas and their concerns. The people I spoke with who were not supportive at first were appreciative when I explained what the bill does not do. Here is what the bill is not. The bill does not prohibit conversations about sexuality between individuals and their parents, family members, spiritual leaders or anyone else. Nothing in the bill limits a person's right to their own point of view on sexual orientation and gender identity, nor the right to express that view including, for example, in private conversations between individuals struggling with their sexual orientation or gender identity with counsellors, family members, friends or religious officials.

I repeat that nothing in this law bans these kinds of legitimate discussions about one's identity or finding one's identity. Rather, it would criminalize a practice that is harmful to Canadians and that has no place in our country. It is young people who suffer the greatest harm from the attempts to force them to be someone they are not. For queer youth, the idea that they need to be fixed can and does contribute to self-hate and fear of rejection by family and friends, which are both very damaging to mental health.

There are many negative impacts associated with conversion therapies. They are linked to a variety of psychosocial outcomes, including depression, anxiety and social isolation. The impacts are profound. A person who has undergone conversion therapy, especially a young person, can experience lifelong trauma. A person will feel like they are not worthy or that they must be ashamed of their identity. They will feel like they must live a lie or even that they do not deserve to live, leading to suicidal thoughts or behaviours. We cannot and will not tolerate this in Canada as we move forward.

I want everyone in my riding of Kitchener—Conestoga and throughout Canada to know that they are accepted. I will do everything in my power to make sure they are safe and have the opportunity to have their voices heard. It has been important for me not only to listen, but also to understand, learn and share what I have learned. I have attended seminars and festivals, spoken at pride events and held multiple virtual town halls to further discussions about our LGBTQ2 community. I have also taken the voices and ideas of my constituents to Ottawa.

Respecting equality means promoting a society in which everyone is recognized as equally deserving of respect and consideration. I am proud that our community here in Waterloo region is moving forward together. The fact that pride flags will be flying in both public and Catholic schools for the first time sends a strong message of support for our youth.

Arts organizations have been on the forefront of acceptance and advocacy, and I am sure our artists will continue to lend their voices for equality. A memory I am especially grateful for was the day that I proudly drove to Wilmot township with my own pride flag in hand to donate it to the ceremony last June. It was publicly raised and unfurled for the first time in the township's history.

In closing, we have come a long way as a society, but there is still much work to do. Let us set an example for Canadians and do this work together. Today's debate is important because, the sooner society accepts everyone's rights, the sooner we let people know we accept them for who they are, not who we think they should be. That will lead to empowering individuals to contribute their talents and their ideas to our community. When we celebrate our children for who they are, they do better and we become better as a nation. I urge all members of this House to support this important bill.

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

Madam Speaker, I just want to get to the nub of the question as it relates to this bill. The member spoke about what, in his view, the bill does not do. He read out a series of exclusions. It does not apply to private conversations. It does not apply to the expression of personally held views on sexuality. These are things members of the government have said.

Of course, what we are voting on is the law, not the statements of members or what is on the justice department website. It is what is in the law. It was telling at committee that Conservatives proposed an amendment to take some of that language he and other members have been using about what it does not apply to. We wanted to simply take those words and put them in the text of the bill.

We proposed an amendment to say that conversion therapy would not include the expression of views on sexual orientation, sexual feelings or gender identity, such as when various people provide support to persons struggling with sexual orientation, sexual feelings or gender identity. We took language from the justice department, and Liberals voted against that amendment. In fact, the member for Etobicoke—Lakeshore said he was concerned that the amendment would defeat the purpose of the bill.

Why did Liberal members vote against that clarity? The member says it does not apply in these cases, yet his members voted against having that clarification in the text of the bill.

[Tim Louis, Liberal, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Madam Speaker, there is a big difference between having conversations with people and forcing someone to undergo so-called therapy. I am hearing in this House over and over again that the idea of forcing a practice onto people, especially children, is something that everyone opposes. It seems like everyone is on the same side in that respect.

We want to make sure we are protecting our youth, protecting the vulnerable people in our community and not restricting support. I want to make that very clear. The bill is not prohibiting conversations between individuals and their parents, family members or spiritual leaders.

I have had many conversations, and that is one of the deeper conversations I have had with constituents. That was their concern. They wanted to make sure that the rights of their parenting were not infringed upon in their conversations and that conversations with spiritual leaders would not be infringed upon. I assured them that they would not be. This legislation, which was worked on, supports that. We are only banning a practice, not conversations.

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Minister of Diversity and Inclusion and Youth]

Madam Speaker, my question for the hon. member pertains to some of the work we have been doing. This is another step in the journey of ensuring that all Canadians are able to be their true authentic selves.

What are the other things the member is doing within his riding and the Region of Waterloo to ensure that we are having meaningful conversations so that we can build back consciously inclusive?

[Tim Louis, Liberal, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for her advocacy and leadership on this. I happen to be the member for the riding next to hers, and we work well together as a region. I mentioned that the Waterloo region is flying the pride flag at public and Catholic schools, and the minister is leading the way on that.

What is also integral are the virtual town halls. I have had 30 to 35 virtual town halls, where I invite people for conversations and have special guests. The minister was one of the people who came, and we had good discussions. I have spoken with members from OK2BME, KW Counselling and various other organizations. This week I will have another town hall to discuss LGBTQ rights.

We are having good conversations that Canadians need to have to make sure that everyone feels secure, accepted and protected. I will continue to work hard, and I know the minister will as well.

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

Madam Speaker, I will quickly raise a point. Earlier today a Liberal member mentioned that conversion therapy could include prayer and religious rights. I do not fault her for saying that, because the Canadian Psychological Association has said the same, which the Liberals linked to, and Australia's recent conversion therapy ban specifically includes prayer-based practice.

If a pastor was to teach traditional sexuality on an ongoing basis and perhaps pray with people who voluntarily attended a class for it on an ongoing basis, would that be conversion therapy?

[Tim Louis, Liberal, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Madam Speaker, I will repeat that nothing in this law would ban those kinds of legitimate discussions about one's identity or finding one's identity. It would criminalize a practice that is harmful to Canadians and a practice that has no place in this country. I will continue to say that.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Madam Speaker, it is with great pleasure and humility that I agreed to rise today to speak to Bill C-6 at third reading in the House of Commons.

Bill C-6 seeks to discourage and denounce conversion therapy by criminalizing certain activities associated with it in order to protect the human dignity and equality of all—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

I apologize to the hon. member for interrupting, but there seems to be a problem with the interpretation. Could the member unplug his microphone and then plug it back in?

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Is it working now?

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

It is working.

The member can start his speech over again.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Madam Speaker, it is with humility that I agreed to rise today to speak to Bill C-6 at third reading in the House of Commons.

This bill seeks to discourage and denounce conversion therapy by criminalizing certain activities associated with it in order to protect the human dignity and equality of Canadians. It seeks to amend the Criminal Code so as to forbid anyone from advertising an offer to provide conversion therapy; causing a person to undergo conversion therapy without the person's consent; 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; and receiving a financial or other material benefit from the provision of conversion therapy.

When we seek election to the House of Commons, we are full of good intentions to help our fellow citizens. We think our past experiences will help us deal with every subject that will arise. I have a confession to make: We are a bit naive to think that we have seen it all in politics just because we served at the municipal or provincial level or worked in all kinds of fields.

Since 2015, I have learned a lot about many issues that affect all aspects of our society. From medical assistance in dying to the government's reaction to a global pandemic that no one saw coming, we are always surprised by the variety of subjects on which we have to speak and on which we are not always as prepared as we would like.

I was born into a middle-class family in Sherbrooke. Growing up, I had all sorts of jobs, including reporter, computer salesman and mayor of Thetford Mines, to name a few, but none of those jobs ever really involved regular interaction with members of the LGBTQ2 community. It is only in recent years, when I really embraced my political career more fully, that I came to have more and more contact with representatives of that community.

That does not mean that I never knew anyone who was part of that community. I have some family members and friends who are openly gay or lesbian. However, I never really talked with them about their daily reality and their interactions with others.

Like many of us, in school, I unfortunately witnessed students laughing, taunting and bullying certain young people who were different. Everyone knows how cruel kids used to be in the past and how cruel they can be today.

What most surprised and angered me was when I found out right here in the House that there are therapies designed to force young people who are in the process of figuring out who they are to undergo so-called treatment to prevent them from becoming who they truly are.

I have read personal accounts of conversion therapy that touched me deeply. I immediately asked myself what I would do if it were one of my children. That is why I wanted to speak to this issue today. I have three wonderful children, and I want all the best for them. They are grown up now.

As I said at second reading of Bill C-6, I love them for who they are, not for who I might wish they were. I love them because they are whole, independent people who make their own choices. Of course, as a father, I might try to influence their choices. I can help them make good choices and help them get back up again when they make poor choices. For my wife and me, our most important job as parents is to be there for them no matter what.

When I found out about conversion therapy, I wondered if it would ever occur to me as a father to want to change who they are. The answer is never. As a father, nothing could make me want to change who they are. Never ever would it occur to me to pay for them to undergo therapy to change who they are. I can pay to help them deal with the vagaries of life, but I want them to deal with those challenges as they are, not as who I might want them to be.

I am clear on this and always have been: Life can lead us to make bad choices, but it cannot allow us to choose who we are. Sexual orientation and gender are not a matter of choice, in my opinion. I have read accounts from young people who have been put through conversion therapy. I can assure my colleagues without the slightest hesitation that, as a father, I would never subject my children to such treatment. Those are my values right now and what I inherently believe is the right thing to do, based on the knowledge I have today.

When I found out about conversion therapy, I wanted to know more. As I mentioned earlier, I honestly had never heard of it until the subject was brought up here in the House of Commons. I had to do my own research. Unfortunately, there is little to no research on conversion therapy in Quebec. Its consequences on Quebec and on members of Quebec's LGBTQ+ community are not well documented either, unfortunately.

I carefully reread some of the testimony on Bill C-6 at the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. What I read was deeply disturbing. I will read some excerpts of the testimony from some witnesses, particularly Erika Muse, who says she is a survivor of transgender conversion therapy.

She testified that she underwent conversion therapy at the now-closed youth gender clinic at the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health in Toronto. She was a patient there for seven years, from age 16 to 23. The doctor who treated her denied her trans-affirming health care in the form of both hormones and surgery until she was 22. Erika said:

[He] instead put me through what he has termed “desistance treatment” for trans youth. He interrogated me in talk therapy for hours at a time, inquisitorially attacking, damaging and attempting to destroy my identity and my self-esteem, and to make me ashamed and hateful of myself.

This young woman criticized Canada for exporting this practice to other countries. Conversion therapy has gone by all sorts of other names, such as autogynephilia, rapid-onset gender dysphoria, watchful waiting and desistance therapy, but, as Erika said:

They all have one thing in common. They're all conversion therapies and practices for trans people. They're attempts to define being trans as wrong, bad and something to be stopped, and they are efforts to stop trans people from living our own lives.

Reading first-hand accounts like that certainly does make us want to change things. I believe that, in a society like ours, it is completely unacceptable to force people to undergo therapy to change who they are.

The government could have achieved more of a consensus in the House of Commons for this bill. Unfortunately, despite the amendments proposed by the Conservative Party and the efforts made to appeal to the government party, it seems that petty politics prevailed. The House could have reached a unanimous agreement.

The Conservative Party brought forward amendments that I thought made sense in order to achieve consensus on the scope of the bill, particularly by protecting private discussions with parents, health professionals and various pastoral counsellors. I will have the opportunity to come back to this later.

I want to begin by explaining why I personally believe that conversion therapy of any kind has no place in Canada or anywhere else in the world.

In 2012, the Ordre des psychologues du Québec issued a warning about conversion therapy. I want to share an excerpt from this report, which deals with the ethical, deontological and illegal considerations of these practices:

Research on these issues has shown that it would be unethical to offer homosexual people wishing to undergo psychotherapy a procedure designed to change their sexual orientation as a treatment option. Not only is this practice unproven, but it also runs the risk of creating false hope and could cause more suffering when the treatment inevitably fails.

Furthermore, offering conversion therapy, especially if the person did not explicitly request it, may reinforce the false belief that homosexuality is abnormal, worsen the distress or shame some feel about not conforming to expectations, and undermine self-esteem. Research shows that procedures designed to change sexual orientation may have a significant negative impact and cause greater distress than that for which the person originally sought psychotherapy....

The report is referring to depression, anxiety and suicidal ideation.

I will continue:

Therefore, it is more appropriate to provide psychotherapy for the purpose of treating depression or anxiety, relieving distress, supporting self-esteem, and helping the person deal with difficulties they may be experiencing, thus fostering self-actualization regardless of their sexual orientation.

That makes perfect sense, and it is a great lead-in for the bill to criminalize conversion therapy in Canada. I can also point to the position of the Quebec government, which has made clear its intention to ban conversion practices in the province. I believe that reflects the fact that the majority of Quebeckers want to put an end to these practices. The Quebec government's Bill 70 seeks to prohibit anyone from soliciting a person, whether free of charge or for payment, to engage in a process of converting their sexual orientation.

Once the law becomes law, offenders will face a fine of up to $50,000, or even $150,000 for a corporation. Quebec is ready to do this, and other jurisdictions in Canada have already done it, such as the City of Vancouver. I feel that is what we need to do, because we have reached that point.

It is estimated that at least 47,000 men and women in Canada have undergone conversion therapy. Unfortunately, we know little about the number of cases in Quebec because the phenomenon is not really tracked. We have a duty as parliamentarians to protect the most vulnerable members of our communities, including members of the LGBTQ community who have been victims of degrading, dehumanizing practices designed to change their sexual orientation against their will.

It is clear that a federal ban is what it will take to put an end to this kind of practice nationwide. Health professionals and health organizations around the world have expressed concerns about conversion therapy.

In 2012, the World Health Organization issued a press release stating that conversion therapy is “a serious threat to the health and well-being of affected people”.

The Canadian Psychological Association took a similar stance in 2015, stating that “[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”.

From a global perspective, conversion therapy is harmful and wrong. This practice should and has to be completely banned.

No Canadian, no matter their age or history, should be put in a position where their identity is challenged and questioned. Above all, no one should be threatened or otherwise forced to undergo this type of therapy against their will. We know, and I have previously stated, that this practice can humiliate these people and force them to feel ashamed of who they are. That is unacceptable.

Allow me to quote another witness who appeared at committee, Peter Gajdics, who wanted to make recommendations for Bill C-6. He told us about his experience seeing a licensed psychiatrist. He was a legal adult at the time, as he was 24 years old when his therapy began and 31 when it ended. This is what he had to say:

I had already come out as gay before I met this psychiatrist. After starting counselling with him, he told me that my history of childhood sexual abuse had created a false homosexual identity and so my therapy's goal would be to heal old trauma in order, as he said, to correct the error of my sexual orientation and revert to my innate heterosexuality.

His methods then included prolonged sessions of primal scream therapy, multiple psychiatric medications to suppress my homosexual desires, injections of ketamine hydrochloride followed by re-parenting sessions to heal my broken masculinity, and when none of his methods worked, aversion therapy.

At their highest dosages he was prescribing near-fatal levels of these medications and I overdosed.

It is unacceptable to hear this kind of testimony in a civilized country like Canada. Several other similar testimonies come to us from across the country, while many people have spoken out in public forums about the effects this practice has had on their lives.

One person said that they were scarred by the experiences they had during a conversion therapy retreat that lasted a single weekend, some years ago. The people who participated in this kind of therapy feel as if they will never be able to forget the experience, saying how difficult it is to deal with what happened during the therapy, rather than the reason why they participated in the first place.

They say that many of the activities they participated in were traumatizing. For example, some people were forced to walk a great distance while being verbally harassed by therapy organizers because of their lifestyle, to unleash their anger by violently hitting a punching bag with a baseball bat, or to recount instances of sexual abuse they lived through. It would seem the objective was to diminish their feelings and emotions.

All of those participants noted that, in some cases, the objective was to recondition them and fundamentally alter them. For others, conversion therapy involved being taught not to act on or follow their natural desires. There are plenty of examples like that, and this type of therapy and the activities associated with it also caused a lot of harm to participants, such as nightmares, depression and suicidal thoughts.

Clearly, we are all against forced conversion therapy. The government could have gotten even more members of the House on board had it taken into account the comments it received when the first bill to ban conversion therapy was introduced.

Originally, the Department of Justice website clearly indicated that private conversations between a parent and child were protected. The current bill is not as explicit, however, and the amendments proposed by my colleagues at the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights were rejected. These amendments would have made it possible to achieve a broader consensus and support, which would have made it even easier to pass Bill C-6.

We did not delay the bill, as the Liberals like to say. That is completely false. We wanted to have a constructive discussion to obtain the broadest possible consensus on Bill C-6. That is why we took the opportunity during the committee study to present amendments. Unfortunately, the Liberals decided not to support them and not to achieve that broader consensus.

In closing, I do not identify with an LGBTQ+ group myself, so I cannot claim to know what a person must feel like when they are ostracized, bullied and ridiculed because of who they are. However, as a father and a Quebecker, I can say that it is high time that this country put an end to conversion therapy because of the harm it has done under the guise of doing something good and, more importantly, to prevent it from doing any more harm in the future.

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Madam Speaker, I want to begin by thanking my esteemed colleague for his incredibly heartfelt speech. My colleague from Mégantic—L'Érable spoke as a father and, quite honestly, I think he and I agree in many ways on the issue we are talking about.

He said that we are a bit naive to think we have seen it all in politics. I agree that in most professions, and in every aspect of life in general, no one has ever seen it all. It is important to say that.

In fact, one of the things that fascinates me is that members of a party that has the word “progressive” in its name, the Progressive Conservative Party, are praising conversion therapy.

My question is simple. I want to know what my hon. colleague says to his friends in his own progressive caucus when those same friends tell him that conversion therapy must be available, that it is a service that must be accessible to everyone.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to correct my colleague by telling him it is the Conservative Party of Canada. I am a proud representative of the Conservative Party of Canada.

I have never heard any of my colleagues say that they were in favour of forced conversion therapy. I have never heard any of my colleagues say that it was okay to force people to undergo conversion therapy, to take pills and use barbaric methods for therapy purposes. I have never heard that from any of my colleagues.

My colleague should not put words in the mouth of my colleagues from the Conservative Party. What we want is to protect the conversations between specialists, between parents. Conversations have to happen.

Should we be forcing people to change who they are through barbaric methods, as we have heard in the various examples cited by the committee and as we have read in the newspapers? No, absolutely not.

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Madam Speaker, I totally agree with much of the speech from the member for Mégantic—L'Érable.

However, it seems that the Conservatives here are trying to say that they are against this practice but they are falling back on a concern about whether conversations about conversion therapy would fall under the aspects of this bill. The member said that the Conservatives' amendments did not pass in committee, but an NDP amendment in committee did pass that gave that greater certainty.

The amendment specified that all good-faith attempts to affirm a person's decision about their sexual orientation, their gender identity or their gender expression would be exempt from this bill, so what more do they want? This amendment gets rid of all the concerns about conversations between family members and friends and, yet, the Conservatives just seem to want to double down on this concern and say “yes, but”. I just wonder if the member could comment on that.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his comments.

It is simple. The government had the opportunity to do things properly. It had the opportunity to again obtain a greater consensus, not just in Parliament but among Canadians. I remind members that each of the 338 parliamentarians in the 43rd Parliament represents people from every riding, people from different social spheres, people at different places in terms of their faith, knowledge and awareness of LGBTQ communities.

As I mentioned, before I became an MP, I had little or no contact with LGBTQ communities and no knowledge of conversion therapy. However, when I read the bill's preamble on the justice department's website, which clearly explained what it was, what it was not and who was exempt from being criminalized, I was satisfied. Most of the people we represent across the country are also satisfied.

The government stubbornly insisted on not accepting a Conservative amendment because it was playing petty politics and wanted to make the Conservative Party look bad, when—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

Order. I am trying to give as much time as possible, but there are other questions.

The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands.

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

Madam Speaker, I found it troubling to listen to the answer to the last question. By default, the Conservatives say the government did this and the government did that, and that this is why we cannot be where we are. The NDP member asked a bona fide question about this issue, and the member tried to deflect it to the government.

The Conservatives have to make a decision. They have to decide whether they are for banning conversion therapy, as they preach so much, or they are going to get hung up on the issue that only they perceive regarding the definition. By the way, the rest of us just look at it as a red herring.

The question for the member is quite clear. What is more important to him: banning conversion therapy or seeing that this definition gets tweaked in a way that absolutely maximizes what he suggests is the proper way, despite the fact that everybody else does not?

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

It is banning conversion therapy. That is it.

We must ban conversion therapy. I cannot not be any clearer than that.

Once again, the member for Kingston and the Islands is trying to redirect the debate and the responses, saying that we do not agree. I remind the member that his party is unfortunately the one in government. His party introduced this bill. His party made some progress and now refuses to make amendments because they come from the Conservatives. It refuses to accept the Conservative Party's sensible amendments. I want to make this clear once and for all. I am completely against conversion therapy. We must ban this practice. It is not a matter of debate; it is a matter of protecting others. That is what my hon. colleague needs to understand.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his commitment to standing against coercive and abusive therapies on behalf of vulnerable Canadians. I wonder, however, what he thinks about the earlier assertion by the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader that this bill includes a protection of parental rights to allow parents to follow a wait-and-see approach for their children who are struggling with their identity. That way, they will wait until they are mature enough to understand the repercussions of gender transition.

The bill clearly allows an affirmation-only approach. I wonder if the member would be able to speak to the apparent error in the parliamentary secretary's statement.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question.

The Liberals are sadly playing politics with this issue instead of trying to find a solution or a consensus, when, for once, a consensus is possible on an issue like this one. It would be easy to get a consensus on this issue, but unfortunately, as my colleague pointed out, the Liberals seem to have a hard time wording the bills properly to ensure that, when they rise in the House, what is written in the bill reflects what they are saying and can reassure most Canadians.

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

Madam Speaker, I have had many constituents who are against the practice of conversion therapy reach out to me. However, I have many constituents who are concerned with the definition used in the bill. They are worried that it could have implications for parental rights, religious freedoms and even getting proper medical information if they are thinking about going through a gender transition.

What does the member think about those concerns?

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Madam Speaker, many people are concerned about the definition in the bill. The Conservatives proposed something very reasonable and acceptable that could have addressed many of these concerns. Unfortunately, the government chose not to accept these amendments, which, as I said, could have and should have gained a broad consensus on a topic as important as this, not only among members of Parliament, but among the people that each of us represents in our ridings.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

Order. It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, Diversity and Inclusion; the hon. member for Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, Small Business; the hon. member for Yorkton—Melville, Justice.

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

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to rise today to participate in such an important debate and discussion about a bill that would ban conversion therapy and make it a criminal practice.

Despite some of the objections that I have heard in the House today, I do not believe this bill would prevent conversations aimed at exploring a person's sexual identity, including with friends, family members, teachers, social workers, psychologists, religious leaders and so on.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

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

Madam Speaker, I am being heckled from across the way that I am wrong on that, but I genuinely believe that I am not.

The issue of conversion therapy came to light in my community of Kingston not that long ago. It was earlier this year or perhaps late in the fall when it became known that a worship centre in Kingston had been practising conversion therapy for many years. This came to light and was documented through a three-part Global News presentation so that people could really understand and grasp what was happening in our community. It even got some national attention, given the severity of what had taken place. It was a real eye-opener to a lot of people in my community to learn what was going on right inside of it, and many experienced shock as a result of hearing about conversion therapy.

One individual was primarily responsible for being the whistle-blower, so to speak. His name is Ben Rodgers. He came forward after years of going through conversion therapy at the Third Day Worship Centre in Kingston, and he told his story. His desire to come forward was, quite frankly, out of his concern for the way that others may be treated and affected by attending the same worship centre that he did, so I would like to take this opportunity to read Ben's words of what he experienced during his time at the Third Day Worship Centre in Kingston.

He writes:

My name is Ben Rodgers, and I am a Conversion Therapy Survivor!

When I was 19 years old, I was subjected to a form of change therapy through a church called Third Day Worship Centre in Kingston Ontario. This church wanted to correct me and make me a “good” “true ‘straight’ man” of god. I came out as Gay when I was 18, I was a Cadet, a Football Player, a Singer, Actor, Writer, Artist, Volunteer, I was on my youth worship team and very involved with my church and community. My Mom moved away, back to Kingston, not long after. My brother and his wife and now my Mother who was living in their basement granny suite were all attending this church and all very much against my being gay.

At 19, I was accepted to go to Musical Theatre School. That Summer, I moved in with my Mom...to make some cash and then go off to school. I experienced Kingston’s Gay “Scene”, which was a small bar called Shay Foo Foo’s, and made new friends.

However, soon I started attending Third Day Worship Centre’s Young Adults group. I fell for the entire thing! The rock band style worship team, the dance team, mission trips, evangelism, bible school! I fell for it all!

At first things didn’t seem so bad at first. I felt very accepted and loved. It felt like they truly wanted to help me and...made me feel like they knew god’s path for me and knew how to “fix” me. It was all too good to be true, I fell for it and I wanted to be a part of it. I wanted to sing and praise. I wanted to be part of the worship team. To be a part of the church, or any of its ministries, you had to become a member.

I was still struggling with being gay and a Christian. These new leaders, and my mom and family, they did not agree with my being gay. I didn't know what to do anymore. That is when I began attending mentoring sessions, and private counsel with my new church leaders. I was taught and made to understand that I was trapped by the “enemy” or “the devil” and his demons. I was made to write a Sin List; I was made to confess anything that may hold me from my walk with god.

I entrusted these leaders with the fact that when I was a boy, I was sexually molested by an older cousin. Due to that encounter, or so these religious leaders made me believe, I had let a man take advantage of me and let the enemy attach his demons of lust and homosexuality upon me. They made me feel and believe that it was my fault and that I was rendered with demons. That and a lack of a father figure is why I was acting out and why I was “choosing” to live this “gay lifestyle, which is a clear abomination onto god”.

There was a prayer service of sorts that was performed over me to make me straight. My very own pray away the gay, or at least the demons, as they called them.

I was directed to observe a 3-day dry fast, which is a fast where you have no foods and no liquids. This is actually rather dangerous and should never be done without medical guidance which I was not suggested to seek out. At the end of the fast, I was to attend the Sunday service after which I was to be sitting at the front row where the Pastor, Francis Armstrong, his wife, and the church counselor, were going to at the end of the service, pray over me.

After three days with no food or liquids, now I had their hands on my face, head and shoulders. It felt like these people were yelling and screaming in these tongues, “mystical languages” that they spoke, and pressing their hands down on me. Until the point where I either gave in and let it all happen or gave up and let them win. I remember, I went down to the floor and they continued, casting out the demons and praying for me to be “right”.

After all of this I was offered a space in their bible school, and learned as I went along that you either did as you were told or they wanted nothing to do with you. I was instructed to become celibate, to throw away and completely separate myself from anything, and anyone, that had to do with my old “gay life”. They also had very strict rules on how I was to act, and what I was and was not allowed to do. They controlled who and when and how I could be around others, and particularly how I was not allowed to be alone with other males.

This all went on for over a year, where I had to be this “straight” person and deny who I really was. Lying to myself and others. Losing pieces of myself. Losing my faith in the process.

After I was kicked out of the bible school, and kicked off of ministry duties, I was slowly pushed out of the church. Losing where I was renting, losing everyone I knew. It meant having to try and learn who I was after having to cut off so much of what and who I was and was trying to be.

I was made to feel worthless, unlovable, unworthy and lesser than others simply for being gay. I was taught to hate myself and taught to feel like who I am is unclean, and unnatural. All of these things were lies. Lies that I was taught to believe and endure. All lies that I have had to overcome and am still overcoming. I have had to go through many hells in my life to become strong enough to fight back and to reclaim who I am.

Now we must fight to help those that are still going through these tortures. Those that haven’t found their voices or found the support and help they need.

Our Government needs to step up and protect people like me who were vulnerable and made choices because we were being geared and taught, or too afraid not to. Help stop these organizations and people who speak and do and cause these harms.

My story is just one of many. Our voices need to be heard!

Those are the words of Ben Rodgers, as I indicated at the beginning of my speech. It is my extreme honour to represent him as his member of Parliament and to read his words into the record as we debate the importance this legislation. Ben is a hero. He found his way to realize what had happened to him so he could tell his story, so he could blow the whistle to the media about what was going on at Third Day Worship Centre in Kingston, Ontario. As a result of that, the community became very aware of this and there was a huge outlash and backlash from the community as people demanded change.

We can argue over the nuances of the wording in the legislation. We can find reasons not to support it. I am very pleased and happy and I congratulate the previous Conservative member, when I asked him a question, for saying that the most important thing was banning conversion therapy. I hope that means he will vote in favour of this bill, as a number of Conservative colleagues did at second reading.

He also said that the government brought this bill in, that it was its fault, that it could have made it clearer and that it put the legislation forward in this form. The government also accepted the proposed changes at committee. The Liberal members sitting on the committee worked with the NDP and I presume the Bloc to bring forward some amendments and changes. The government certainly respected the parliamentary process to allow the committee to do its work so it could report back to the House with a more improved bill, and that is what we have.

I genuinely hope my Conservative colleagues who voted for this bill at second reading, who have shown they are willing to take leadership on this issue and who are concerned about specific wording will recognize that we went through the parliamentary process. They obviously have a concern, a concern that is not shared by the majority. Now the bill is back in the House. At the end of the day, what is more important than trying to dissect the exact wording and what it implies is that this legislation get passed, so people like Ben do not continue to be subjected to the abuses, so people like Ben are not told in their place of worship that they are unclean. That is more important than getting hung up on a definition because someone happens to think it might mean something that it does not, which, by the way, the majority of members of the House clearly do not.

I really hope the Conservative members do not use that as a reason not to support this bill. I know there will be dissent among members in the House. There will be a few members, probably the one who heckled me earlier in my speech, and that is fine, but the more members who support this, the better. We will not get unanimous support of the House, which I think is fairly clear, but we certainly can show that members can come out in large numbers to represent almost unanimous consent that this is an important issue for people in our country. This is an important issue for a portion of our population that has struggled so much throughout the years, that has tried so much to get governments of the day to wake up and realize that there is no difference between people just because of the way we happen to be born and who we are.

I encourage all members of the House to vote in favour of the legislation, to get it through the House, as a previous member of the Bloc said, before this session of Parliament is over so we can put it into law, make this is a criminal activity and ensure that voices like Ben Rodgers help protect people into the future.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Madam Speaker, I agree with my colleague. Ben was lied to. Sexual orientation is not a disorder to be cured, and the creator does not make mistakes. His friend Ben is whole and perfect in the eyes of whatever deity he subscribes to. That needs to be put on the record in the House of Commons.

The story of Ben also speaks to the facts and some of the causes as to why the LGBTQ+ community experiences such high levels of youth homelessness. These beliefs that sexual orientation is something to be cured often forces youth from the community onto the streets.

I am wondering if the member can talk about why ending the practice of conversion therapy in the country is so important to ending the stigma and also, hopefully over time, eroding the type of stigma that forces youths from the community onto the streets and into poverty.

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

Madam Speaker, most members here know that member and I can go toe to toe on some issues together from time to time, but we clearly see eye to eye on this one, and I am extremely grateful for that.

We need to ensure conversion therapy is banned, because it is part of the long process of healing and coming to terms with the way people were treated in the past and, in particular, people in the LGBTQ2 community.

We are making advancement. We are progressing. We are changing. I look at my own parents and they have come so far in their personal positions on gay marriage, for example.

Encouraging people to be proud of who they are will only further advance the progress we have already made and must continue to make so more young people are accepted for who they are and feel comfortable in their own skin. I genuinely believe that in itself will help tremendously with a lot of the homelessness she has identified.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Kingston and the Islands for his speech.

We are hearing a lot of opinions in this very sensitive debate. What concerns me is that we are still having this discussion, even after all the progress made in recent decades.

I know that the hon. member represents a party that claims to be progressive. I think that we are also a party that sees itself as progressive and that every member of the House considers himself or herself progressive.

I would like to ask my colleague if he feels that today's debate and the fact that we have to discuss this topic are a bit disturbing, because in a normal world, this kind of conversion therapy should not even occur to anyone.

I would like to hear my colleague's comments on that.

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

Madam Speaker, I too am very comfortable talking about this. Sometimes, though, perhaps we need to have uncomfortable conversations to push the needle even further. If this is uncomfortable to any degree for anybody, if I am understanding the question correctly, and if that helps push forward the agenda on this very important topic, then I am more than willing to participate in that.

With some of the rhetoric we heard today, I am concerned that we not lose sight of the greater good here. The greater good, no matter how we look at it, is protecting people in these vulnerable situations as opposed to nitpicking over a particular wording in legislation.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill—Keewatinook Aski, MB]

Madam Speaker, I want to begin by acknowledging that I am asking this question while our country mourns the discovery of the 215 children found in a mass grave at the Kamloops residential school. We honour those lives and recognize the genocide committed by Canada.

On a day where we ought to be talking about the importance of moving past our histories of hate, whether it is toward indigenous people or transpeople, I am frankly disturbed by the level of transphobia I have heard from Conservative MPs in the House of Commons, some of it overt, some of it covert.

What we heard clearly in testimony and what those of us who know and love transpeople know is that conversion therapy is dangerous, even deadly. We are talking about banning a practice that hurts people. Could the member speak to the life-saving importance of banning conversion therapy?

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

Madam Speaker, I have no doubt about the fact that it is absolutely critical toward saving lives. During my speech, I read into the record the story of Ben Rodgers. Ben summed it up by saying that he was doing this now, coming forward to tell his story, so we could help put an end to this.

Ensuring conversion therapy is banned might only be one step, but it is certainly a very important step forward in ensuring many lives are not negatively affected by this horrible practice.

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Minister of Diversity and Inclusion and Youth]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the member putting the words of Ben into the record. I also want to thank Ben for his courage in sharing his story so hopefully we do not see more victims of conversion therapy.

I would like the member's comments and thoughts on the second reading vote on the legislation. We saw so many members, for the first time, providing qualifications as to why they were supporting it this time, almost setting the stage as to why they would be voting against it at third reading. Hopefully they will not. I appreciate the member's thoughts on that.

I would also like the member's thoughts on us, as representatives. Do we represent the voices of the majority or as decision-makers here, do we bring about laws that will allow more Canadians to be their true, authentic selves?

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

Madam Speaker, I would share in some of the concern as to what I have heard today. At the second reading on this, we saw all but seven or eight Conservatives vote in favour of sending this to committee. Now that the bill has come back, the tables seemed to have turned quite a bit. It seems as though people are trying to establish the groundwork to justify why they cannot vote for it at third reading.

Those members have to make a decision. What is more important? Trying to fine-tune wording because they think it might do something that very few people agree with or protecting people like Ben? I would submit that ensuring we protect people like Ben is of utmost importance when it come to voting on this, not getting hung up on some words in legislation.

On her other comments, we are put here to ensure people are represented and quite often that happens to be a minority, but that is, quite frankly, our job.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to make a comment about the individual of whom the member spoke. I could not agree more that this individual faced conversion therapy and it was entirely wrong. My heart goes out to him. I certainly hope and pray he is doing much better after having gone through that.

The member also used words like “nitpicking” and "hung up" on having concerns with this legislation. My concerns reflect someone who was part of the study, someone who told committee members that in light of her desire to have help in counselling, she was invisible to them. Bill C-6 is too expansive based on the fact that it now bans two kinds of counselling; sexual orientation change counselling and reduction of sexual behaviour counselling independent—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

I will let the hon. member answer.

The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands.

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

Madam Speaker, this issue has gone through the parliamentary process. I respect the member's objection. However, it went through the parliamentary process. It went to committee. It was studied at committee. It went through the due process that it was entitled to. It is now back before the House.

The question is, do we vote in favour of legislation to support people like Ben or do we vote against it because we are concerned with one particular element that has not been proven to be the case in terms of the definition?

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

Madam Speaker, I will begin my contribution to this sober discussion of Bill C-6 and the need to protect Canadians from conversion therapy with experiences in my own life where individuals have been harmed by being directed unknowingly or forced into inappropriate treatments against their will.

My first experience was in the medical field, when I was employed at Souris Valley Mental Health Hospital. From its beginnings in 1921, it was considered on the cutting edge of experimental treatments for people with mental illness. The facility had a reputation of leading the way in therapeutic programming. Early techniques included insulin shock therapy, hydrotherapy, electroshock and lobotomy.

A lobotomy is a form of psychosurgery, a neurosurgical treatment of a mental disorder that involves severing most connections in the brain's prefrontal cortex. It was used for mental disorders, usually defined by a combination of how a person behaves, feels, perceives, and thinks, and occasionally other conditions as a mainstream procedure in some western countries for more than two decades, despite general recognition of frequent and serious side effects. While some people experienced symptomatic improvement with the operation, the improvements were achieved at the cost of creating other impairments. The procedure was controversial from its initial use, in part due to the balance between benefits and risks.

One of the patients in my care was Annie, one of the few remaining lobotomy patients at that time in Canada. Today, lobotomy has become a disparaged procedure, a byword for medical barbarism and an exemplary instance of the medical trampling of patients' rights.

What is remarkable to me is that the originator of the procedure shared the 1949 Nobel Prize for Physiology or Medicine for the “discovery of the therapeutic value of lobotomy in certain psychoses”. Clearly, what we know now would have made this award reprehensible.

Another personal experience with a method of conversion therapy was 30 years ago, when a family dear to me was navigating a behavioural problem. At a young age, a child was suffering anger and rebellion issues, and the treatment recommended to the parents was participation in a wilderness camp experience that taught discipline and built peer relationships. The parents’ grief was overwhelming, learning their young teen was coerced into submission with no compassionate support or counselling and had attempted suicide. Upon extraction from that place and hospitalization near home, they later learned that at an innocent age their child had been traumatized by sexual abuse.

In both of these scenarios, what was considered to be cutting-edge, state-of-the-art or appropriate treatment at the time was clearly abusive and wrong.

Today, in this bill and in the scientific and medical realms, conversion therapy is defined and only applied to the LGBTQ2 community. I support a conversion therapy ban, but not this conversion therapy ban, because this bans more than just conversion therapy. Bill C-6 clearly violates the fundamental Charter of Rights and Freedoms for LGBTQ2 and other Canadians.

The definition of conversion therapy conflates orientation with behaviour. The Bill C-6 definition states:

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

The definition actually defines conversion therapy to include providing counselling for someone to reduce their unwanted sexual behaviour. This means that if counselling is about reducing porn use or sexual addiction but is not seeking to change someone’s orientation, it would still be a criminal act if it is non-heterosexual behaviour.

There are legitimate reasons why people of any orientation may want to reduce their behaviour. This definition, though, would allow only straight Canadians to get that support but not LGBTQ2 Canadians. This would directly violate the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms' equality provisions. It would criminalize any conversation including conversations initiated by LGBTQ2 individuals seeking answers to sexuality questions they wish to explore with family members, friends or faith leaders.

No medical body or professional counselling body in North America uses this definition created by the government for Bill C-6. The Canadian Psychological Association actually defines a psychologist as someone who helps clients change their behaviour, stating, “A psychologist studies how we think, feel and behave from a scientific viewpoint and applies this knowledge to help people understand, explain and change their behaviour.”

In addition to no medical or professional counselling body in North America using this definition, the bill’s definition contradicts itself. The government says that LGBTQ2 Canadians can still explore their sexuality, but exploration cannot happen if they cannot also choose to reduce behaviours that every other Canadian could get help with.

There are many reasons why someone would want to reduce unwanted behaviour without changing their orientation, but the bill would prevent any directional support that would reduce non-heterosexual behaviours. No one suspects that straight persons seeking to reduce sexual behaviour such as pornography use or sex addiction are attempting to change their sexual orientation. LGBTQ2 persons seeking the same kind of professional help could also just be wanting to reduce that behaviour without changing their orientation. Under this bill, however, they would not be able to get help because of their sexual orientation or gender identity. An exploration clause would not protect this treatment.

The language applies to conversations between and with parents, with trusted friends, discussions between individuals and faith leaders, as well as sensitive interactions with guidance counsellors. It also contains no exceptions for the right to conversations between parents and their children. Counsel from these individuals, people who are appropriately looked to for wisdom and support, would effectively be criminalized to the same degree as the damaging and unacceptable practices that all members of the House seek to prohibit. Currently, any course of counselling whereby individuals are seeking to reduce their sexual activities could be considered conversion therapy and therefore subject to legal intervention. This could be corrected.

In Bill C-6, the exploration clause itself directs patients’ counselling outcomes. Even professional counsellors seek not to do that for their patients, so why is the government directing outcomes with this bill? Professional counsellors are like a GPS: They only give directions, but the client decides the destination.

The government’s definition of conversion therapy is not used by governments around the world. No conversion therapy ban in the world bans counselling for unwanted non-heterosexual behaviour. I have reviewed and would be pleased to provide a research document listing 152 definitions of conversion therapy used around the world, including by all the governments that have passed a law or bylaw that are listed on Wikipedia, the United Nations, the United Church of Canada and LGBTQ2 activists like Kris Wells. None of them include sexual behaviour counselling independent of orientation change.

Bill C-6 is much too expansive, based on the fact that Canada's ban actually bans two kinds of counselling: sexual orientation change counselling and reduction of sexual behaviour counselling independent of orientation change. This is why the ban is so dangerous. No medical body or government in the world defines conversion therapy that way.

The UN definition, as follows, would better reflect what the definition of conversion therapy should be in Bill C-6:

“Conversion therapy” is an umbrella term used to describe interventions of a wide-ranging nature, all of which have in common the belief that a person's sexual orientation or gender identity can and should be changed. Such practices aim (or claim to aim) at changing people from gay, lesbian or bisexual to heterosexual and from trans or gender diverse to cisgender.

That is a good definition that this bill should reflect.

As a direct consequence of the flawed definition of conversion therapy, this bill would restrict freedom of choice and expression for LGBTQ2 Canadians. While the bill would allow for measures to change a child’s gender, including surgery and counselling, there is no such liberty afforded for those who wish to transition back to their birth gender. It would restrict intimate conversations intended to limit sexual behaviour, as well as individuals’ attempts to detransition.

This all-encompassing bill would not only criminalize people who listen or speak to those transitioning or having transitioned, but also those who have gone through the process of transitioning, have detransitioned, and are now sharing their stories with others. A simple search of the Internet will expose members to a wide range of thought, opinion, and the personal stories of those who have struggled with gender dysphoria. Not only would these individuals be criminalized by Bill C-6, but they would also be silenced by the implementation of Bill C-10, because of their communications on social media.

Many of those stories include decisions taken at a young age to begin the use of hormone treatment or to surgically alter one's body. For many, these decisions did not satiate feelings of gender dysphoria and, in many cases, worsened feelings of self-image and self-identity.

I will share a handful of these testimonies to have on record today.

In the case of one YouTuber, she, Elle Palmer, started taking testosterone at the age of 16. She had struggled for years with issues of self-hatred and, in her words, began the process of transitioning not in order to look more masculine but in order to hide elements of her body. In her opinion, transitioning was the ultimate form of self-harm. She wanted to change everything about herself and did not see a future in which she could be happy in her own body. At the time, she did not realize that it was possible not to hate her own body.

In another piece of personal testimony, Max explicitly states that gender transition was not the solution to her severe depression. In her words, she feels that she needed a transition in her life, but not from female to male.

Cari's advice to others is that, from her own experience and from her conversations with other detransitioned and reidentified women, “transition is not the only way, or even necessarily the best way, to treat gender dysphoria”. She speaks to her own experience, where she was prescribed hormones after four sessions of therapy. She notes that no attempts were made at these therapy sessions to process personal issues that she raised. She notes that no one in the medical or psychological field ever tried to dissuade her from her gender transition or to offer other options, other than to perhaps wait until age 18. She says, “I detransitioned because I knew I could not continue running from myself...because acknowledging my reality as a woman is vital to my mental health.”

Lee spoke to her experience: “There were all these red flags and I honestly wish that somebody had pointed them out to me and then I might not have transitioned in the first place. If I had realized that somebody with a history of an eating disorder, a history of childhood sexual abuse, a history of neglect and bullying for being a gender non-conforming female, a person with internalized homophobia and misogyny should not have been encouraged to transition.... I wish that somebody had sort of tried to stop me...transition...did not work for me.”

There is another story, which I transcribed from a post on YouTube from July 2019, which has now been made private, so I am going to respect the author's anonymity while sharing her thoughts. She said the following, and I am quoting her.

“I was transgender since I was 15. I’m 21 now.

“I don’t want to be a life-long medical patient. I don’t want to be psychologically dependent on hormones that are made in a lab and injected into me.

“What I want, and what I’ve always wanted, is peace with myself. Not surgically altered self, but my own self. I want to feel an organic love for my body. This body that I was born into, that I was lucky to be born into and inhabit.

“I wanted to find ways of dealing with my gender issues that aren’t medically transitioning, and those ways were not presented to me. Now is my time to make peace with femaleness. With womanhood.

“Even though I’m not good at being a woman, in the sense that I get gender dysphoria, a woman is still what I am. A dysfunctional, wonky, weird, gay, autistic, and completely authentic woman.

“I think I was possessed by some-thing. By an ideology. I can’t understate the role social media has played in all this.

“It’s glaringly obvious to me now that which part of the internet you inhabit for large chunks of time has serious effects on your brain, and your view of the world.

“When it feels right, I’ll tell my parents. And I know they’ll be happy to hear it, because the concerns they had about my 16-year-old self are the ones that I’m just starting to understand as a 21-year-old. I suppose wisdom really does come with age, doesn’t it.

“But, um, yeah, you try telling that to an isolated, self-loathing, gender non-conforming 16-year-old who wants to transition. I mean, you’re going to run into some issues.

“It’s just gender dysphoria that I deal with in my own way now, and I don’t want to go through all the things that I was kind of being, I guess, pressured by these online spaces to go and do.

“I know there are lots of people who are just like me, really, who are going through this same thing, and I have a funny feeling that there will be lots—lots more of us in the next few years as more people who are sort of teenagers, and non-binary and trans at the moment get into their early 20s.

“So, if I can make this resource that maybe people can relate to, because we are, we are, people like us, sort of um, masculine girls and butch lesbians, who were born between sort of the years 1995 and 2000 that have really been the guinea pigs for this.

“For this, whatever this is, going on in the trans community at the moment. We’ve been the guinea pigs and I’m at the other side now, and I really hope that some more people who are struggling with this can get out to the other side. Cuz it’s nice.”

These are not my fabrications. They are the personal, emotional testimonies of those who found that gender transition was not a permanent solution to their gender dysphoria and who found worth in their own process of detransition. These individuals have made their stories of detransitioning, or deciding not to surgically or hormonally transition, public and they stress that they are in no way being disrespectful toward the personal choices of others. This is important. They have friends and, as it stands, Bill C-6 would criminalize people like them. We cannot restrict the free, respectful and exploratory speech of those with valuable lived experience. The overreach of this legislation will harm those who seek to detransition as well as those who, of their own free will, seek support and counselling to change behaviour as LGBTQ2 individuals.

This ban censors conversations. It is not the definition of conversion therapy in Bill C-6 that would censor conversations about sexuality and gender, but the clause on advertising. At the justice committee, the government added the word “promotion” of conversion therapy as a criminal act. This means that free advertising, including verbal advertising, would be banned as criminal as well.

The original wording of the advertising ban states, “Everyone who knowingly advertises an offer to provide conversion therapy is”, and the updated clause states, “Everyone who knowingly promotes or advertises an offer to”. Because the bill defines conversion therapy as merely getting support to reduce behaviour, verbal promotion of a religious event that encourages people to remain celibate, a column that supports detransitioning or any kind of verbal advertising for a counselling session to reduce non-heterosexual behaviour would be made criminal.

Free to Question is an alliance of detransitioners, medical experts, parents, LGBTQ2 people and feminists who want to protect the right of health care professionals to offer ethical and agenda-free psychotherapy services and assessments to gender-dysphoric youth. I think it would be helpful to repeat the list of those participating in this alliance: detransitioners, medical experts, parents, LGBTQ2 people and feminists. They call for an addition to the bill to ensure health care professionals are able to support youth effectively. They wanted this in the bill:

For greater certainty, this definition does not apply to any advice or therapy provided by a social worker, psychologist, psychiatrist, therapist, medical practitioner, nurse practitioner or other health care professional as to the timing or appropriateness of social or medical transition to another gender, including discussion of the risks and benefits and offering alternative or additional diagnoses or courses of treatment.

Every one of us in the House has a responsibility to balance individual rights and freedoms within a diverse society. While the charter protects a pluralistic society, this bill creates a zero-sum game of winners and losers and puts pluralism at risk because the definition of conversion therapy being used causes more harm than good.

Bill C-6, like so many other bills and regulations the Liberal government has brought forward, intentionally seeks to control outcomes based on ideological indoctrination. It goes far beyond the agreed need to ban conversion therapy to controlling thought, speech and behaviour, and stifling democratic freedoms through overreaching legislation.

I support a conversion therapy ban, but not this conversion therapy ban, because this bans more than just conversion therapy. Therefore, I cannot support Bill C-6. Let us do better.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Salaberry—Suroît, QC]

Madam Speaker, I have two questions for my colleague

First, I heard her make a connection between mental health and the problems that someone who is homosexual can experience. I would like her to clarify. Does she think there is a connection between homosexuality and having a mental health issue?

Second, she mentioned all of the legislation on conversion therapy, so I wanted to ask her whether she has read Bill 70. This bill was introduced in the Quebec National Assembly to amend the Quebec Professional Code to prohibit professionals from providing conversion therapy.

I would like to know whether she has read that bill. If so, what does she think about it?

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

Madam Speaker, I have to say that, as I introduced my speech today and talked about my experiences in a particular hospital with lobotomy, I thought that might come up. The truth of the matter is absolutely not. The point I was making is that human beings do things to each other, and we sometimes think we are doing what is best in the moment and we find out after the fact. I mean, none of us would give a prize to that particular individual for what was done there. I worked with Annie, and I can certainly speak to that first-hand, so that is not what I was saying. As far as Bill 70, it would modify legislation so that health practitioners and whatnot cannot provide conversion therapy, and I agree with that wholeheartedly.

As I said in my speech in relation to what the individuals of that group wanted in the bill, they are not talking about conversion therapy. They are talking about the opportunity to have more than one perspective presented, and we know that there are many options. Just from what these individuals who have detransitioned have shared, it is clear they felt that they were not being given the best opportunity for care, and this—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

I have to go to other questions and comments.

Questions and comments, the hon. Minister of Diversity and Inclusion and Youth.

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Minister of Diversity and Inclusion and Youth]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for sharing the testimonies people have shared with her. I know that she has been listening throughout the debate today and, prior to this, to the work at committee where she heard several other testimonies. I would ask the member this: Is it important that their voices also be heard?

I have an additional question to the member, as she closed by sharing how she would be voting. Because she and numerous members have determined and shared how they would be voting, why are we not calling this legislation to a vote? We could ensure that we either allow the bill to continue in the democratic process or, if there is enough opposition to it, we would not see the bill proceed.

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

Mr. Speaker, my concern is very deep. Believe me, I have those relationships too. An individual was discussed who faced this terrible conversion therapy experience. Conversion therapy needs to end. I do not disagree with that.

However, it is disturbing to me that the Liberal government adds things in. When I voted to send the bill to committee, I expected better, not worse. What was done there actually included changes to behaviour. This applies to LGBTQ2 individuals who want to make changes to their behaviour that have nothing to do with their orientation, so this legislation is flawed.

Let us do better. Let us focus on conversion therapy, and then the bill would have unanimous support.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, sitting here in the debate for a number of days now, and having to listen to the level of transphobia coming from the Conservatives, has been really disturbing. I would like to point out that the member tells stories that certainly fit her values, but she does not seem to acknowledge the many other stories that have been told.

I wonder why the member continues to oppose something that is a human right. Certainly, what she is speaking about in terms of acknowledging all the research that has been done on the matter totally contradicts everything that she has shared today.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for the question, but I do not appreciate being called a transphobe. She does not know anything about me. She does not know the relationships I have, so that is inappropriate. It is time for us to stop this name-calling.

Second, human rights are very important to me. Believe me. They are the premise of my private member's bill. That being said, there are people here whose human rights are being trampled on, because the bill goes too far. Someone who wants a change in their behaviour cannot do it legally as an LGBTQ2 person, because this bill is proposing controlling behaviours as well as conversion therapy, such as the behaviour of individuals who want to have certain types of care. This bill would impact the human rights of those people.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague for her speech. It was one of the more informative speeches we have heard here today. She really tackled the issues in the bill: key terms and concepts, unlike what we have seen from a lot of the Liberals.

When the Liberals get up to talk about this they talk about banning conversion therapy, and everybody is in favour of banning conversion therapy. It all comes down to what one defines as conversion therapy. It has been our intention the entire time to ensure that the definition is right.

I want to commend my hon. colleague for her speech today. Could the member comment a little more about the inclusion of the term “behaviour” in this bill?

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

Mr. Speaker, it is so important to me that we deal with facts and not name-calling.

In a recent Nanos poll, 91% of Canadians supported the right of Canadians to get the counselling of their choice, regardless of sexual orientation. I think that says it all, right there. The majority of Canadians want all Canadians to get the counselling of their choice, regardless of sexual orientation.

What this bill does now, since going to committee and coming back, is it removes that opportunity: that right to get counselling in regard to sexual behaviour. That should not be impacted by sexual orientation. Even the Minister of Justice admitted that Bill C-6 prevents consenting adults from getting the counselling they want. In introducing the bill, he said that the government:

[recognizes] that criminalizing profiting from conversion therapy means that consenting adults would be prevented from accessing conversion therapy unless it is available free of charge.

Since when does the government have the authority to tell individual people what they want to do? I think that applies especially here in regard to seeking help with behavioural issues that any Canadian wants help with, and 91% of us think—

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

We have time for one more question.

The hon. member for Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have to say that I have probably never heard a more misleading speech on a piece of legislation in the House.

I wonder why the member continually, deliberately misreads the legislation. For instance, when she says that individuals cannot talk about promoting conversion therapy, the legislation says quite specifically that what is prohibited is promotion of an offer to provide conversion therapy. It says nothing about individual conversations. When the member says that it provides only one kind of counselling, the bill does exactly the opposite. The bill says very specifically that counselling should be offered without prejudging a sexual orientation or gender identity.

Why does the member persist in misleading the public about what is actually in this legislation?

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

Mr. Speaker, I believe that at committee, it was the member who responded to the individual who wanted to live a life other than a gay life. It was a choice. They had succeeded and chosen to do that. It was a choice. They did it with the help of counselling that this bill would make illegal.

She said to him, “You are making me invisible.” You assured her that you would not do that, but what came out of that committee has actually made her even more invisible than she was to you before.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

Just before we go to resuming debate, I have a general thought with respect to members referring to others in the second person, using the words “you” and “your”. It does creep into debate from time to time. It is not an egregious offence, but it is something that needs caution and I remind members to direct their comments to the Chair.

Resuming debate.

The hon. member for Salaberry—Suroît.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Salaberry—Suroît, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to say that I will be sharing my time with my esteemed colleague from Abitibi—Témiscamingue.

I rise today to participate in the debate at third reading of Bill C-6, an act to amend the Criminal Code regarding conversion therapy.

What is conversion therapy? Conversion therapy is a practice, service or treatment that is essentially designed to change a person's sexual orientation. I want to stress here that the goal is to “change”, since we are talking about conversion, which involves change. In my research, I learned that around 47,000 people in Canada have been subjected to this type of “therapy”—which I am putting in air quotes—and it is never successful.

I think I have mentioned that I am a social worker and very proud to be an active member of my professional association. I want to point out that Quebec has already had this debate, and that it has been taking real action against conversion therapy since Bill 70 was unanimously adopted in the Quebec National Assembly on December 9, 2020. Ontario and Manitoba have also passed similar legislation.

Passing Bill 70 was one more milestone confirming Quebec's place as a leader in Canada—and the world—in the fight against discrimination on the ground of sexual orientation. Quebec is a great nation that is respectful and open and celebrates sexual diversity. That is something that makes me very proud.

Driven by this deep conviction, this long tradition of respect and the unanimity on the principle at the National Assembly, the Bloc Québécois is obviously in favour of Bill C-6.

It should be noted that the bill the Liberal government introduced chooses not to fully ban conversion therapy, limiting the prohibition to minors and banning advertising and marketing as well as sending a Canadian minor abroad to get this type of pseudo-therapy. In other words, Bill C-6 seeks to ban imposing conversion therapy on children and adolescents. I am particularly sensitive to the whole issue of adolescence because it is a time when a person gets to know their body, a time of self-discovery.

I must say that I am a bit shocked that this topic is still being debated in the House today, but I am pleased to see that the majority of parliamentarians here support the idea of banning this type of therapy, except for a very active and vocal fringe of the Conservative Party, as we have seen today.

The bill seems balanced. To me it covers the bare minimum. Frankly, I am surprised to have to make this speech, since this seems to fall under the category of respecting people's freedom to love whoever they want. Indeed, this is a question of love that we are talking about today. I want to make a point of saying that my wish is that every child and adolescent in Quebec and Canada can feel respected, welcomed, understood, included and loved regardless of their sexual orientation.

I also want to tell them that I have a great deal of empathy for those who are led to believe that they must choose between their sexual orientation and their spirituality, between their sexual orientation and their life in the community, between their sexual orientation and their future prospects, or in some cases between their sexual orientation and their family ties. These kinds of choices have no place in an open, sensible and sensitive society.

In fact, these dilemmas imposed on some young people are, in my opinion, absurd, since sexual orientation is not a matter of choice. It is therefore absurd to think that sexual orientation will determine anyone's place in society. It is also ridiculous to believe that conversion therapy could do anything other than suppress the full and honest expression of their sexual orientation. Conversion therapy cannot cure a disease that, basically, is not a disease or even a flaw.

Let us be clear: the practice of conversion therapy undermines respect for everyone's gender identity and sexual orientation. Conversion therapies are a direct affront to human dignity.

The Bloc Québécois recognizes that the groups promoting these practices are tiny and in a minority, and wishes to broadly state that respect for beliefs must go hand in hand with respect for differences and, at the same time, the assurance of equality among all persons.

However, conversion therapy advocates usually present these so-called therapies as a caring process and well-thought-out therapeutic sessions developed to help people come to their senses and get back on track. They present their sessions as open discussions about sexual orientation.

How can a discussion be open and balanced when the very purpose of that discussion is conversion? How can we believe that this is an open discussion when people are paying, and sometimes paying quite a lot, for a service that seeks to change a person's sexual preferences? How can we believe that these discussions can be beneficial when minors are being forced to participate in them under duress? In my opinion, the answer is obvious.

There is a very significant difference between caring and conversion therapy. Caring comes through acceptance, and when there is acceptance then people can talk about the fact that it is normal for a person to question their sexual orientation, try different things and learn about their sexuality and about the fact that a person's sexual orientation can change over the course of their lifetime.

If we are truly accepting and open-minded, we can recognize that it is completely normal to be gay or to identify somewhere on the broad spectrum of sexual orientation. If we are completely open-minded and accepting, we understand that a person can, at different times in their life, experience something other than heterosexuality, and that is normal. If we are completely open-minded, we understand that being gay, lesbian, bisexual or any sexual orientation is equivalent to being heterosexual. In other words, sexual orientation should not have an impact on the life or the value that a person has.

Not being able to tolerate the idea that an individual can love the person they choose to love is not being open-minded. Those who seek to guide an individual to what is considered tolerable, to suppress sincere feelings and to violate a person's right to live their sexual orientation with dignity, are forced to use arguments based on fear. This places people in a position of making judgments.

I want members to clearly hear me. The Bloc Québécois will definitely be voting unanimously for Bill C-6. All our members, and I did say all, will vote in favour of this bill, as we did at second reading.

I call on all political parties to do the same and to fully, unequivocally and unanimously support Bill C-6 to send a clear message that, in Quebec and in Canada, we respect the dignity of all people who, ultimately, are just living with love.

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

Mr. Speaker, I do want to remind the House that members of the Bloc, at committee, raised significant concerns about the text of this legislation. In fact, the Bloc representative on the committee voted against the addition of references to gender expression to the definition. It is important for the Bloc to remember that it was its own representative on the committee who did say that we needed to get the wording, the definition, right, because there are problems with the definition, and amendments were passed that he, in fact, voted against.

The other thing I wanted to say is that we hear from members, like the member for Kingston and the Islands, that we have to choose between banning conversion therapy and worrying about the details. I would simply say let us do both. Let us fix the problems with the definition and let us pass this bill. We have had the opportunity to do that. We still have the opportunity to do that.

I am struck to hear some members dismiss the study of the details as if they do not matter. If we get the details wrong, then we ban things that are not related to conversion therapy. Let us do both. Let us get the details right and let us pass this conversion therapy bill.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Salaberry—Suroît, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. I know that he is passionate about this issue. We heard him speak at length in the House and at committee.

I would just like to remind him that, from a medical perspective, conversion therapy is pseudoscience. Not only is it dangerous and degrading for the patient, but many studies have also proven that it does not work.

We heard from many witnesses about the impact of this type of therapy on people. Witnesses told us that their lives were turned upside down and that they even thought about suicide because they felt rejected by their community due to their sexual orientation, which in fact demonstrates that conversion therapy does not work.f

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Minister of Diversity and Inclusion and Youth]

Mr. Speaker, let me begin by saying that I really appreciated the member's speech, just as I appreciate her support and that of all Bloc Québécois MPs.

Does my colleague think we need to keep debating this bill, or does she think it is time to pass it so it can be brought into force and enable more Canadians to be themselves?

I believe Canada is an inclusive country. We know we still have a lot of work to do.

Is it time to vote on this motion, or do we need to keep debating this bill?

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Salaberry—Suroît, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for her question.

I think my comment will serve as an answer to her question. Since 1977, Quebec's Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms has recognized sexual orientation as prohibited grounds for discrimination. In 2002, Quebec's National Assembly made the civil union of two people of the same sex legal.

In answer to her question, yes, it is time we passed this bill so we can protect children and teens who are currently being subjected to conversion therapy.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to be part of a party that has been groundbreaking in this country in forging respect for rights on gender and sexuality going back decades. I am always concerned when I hear a debate on rights and protection qualified by the word “but”, and that is what I am hearing here. I am hearing everybody say they are in favour of banning conversion therapy, “but”. The “but” seems to be they are concerned that, by banning this harmful conversion therapy, we might interfere with some forms of conversion attempts that may be caught by this.

The problem is that, underlying every concern expressed, mainly by Conservatives, there is something wrong with the person, so they want to preserve some ability to convert someone for something. That is where the problem is. There is nothing wrong with individuals who are non-heterosexual or non-binary gendered individuals.

My question is this. I am hearing a lot from the Conservatives, and the Liberals for that matter, that they are concerned about people being able to access counselling. If so, does my colleague agree with the NDP that we should amend the Canada Health Act so necessary mental health services are—

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

Time is up. We have time for a quick response.

The hon. member for Salaberry—Suroît has the floor.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Salaberry—Suroît, QC]

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, I do not agree with his last question because we all know that all mental health care, health care and social services fall under provincial jurisdiction, and so under Quebec's jurisdiction, and that Quebec already provides quality services to support everyone who needs help.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House to debate this bill about a social issue. However, in 2021, we should not have to rise in the House under such circumstances because conversion therapy obviously no longer has a place in our society.

The Bloc Québécois supports Bill C-6. Why? The reason is that the Bloc Québécois is deeply committed to protecting and promoting the rights and freedoms of Quebeckers and has always been quick to combat discrimination based on sexual orientation. 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. 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 same-sex marriage was legalized by the National Assembly of Quebec in 2002, when it instituted civil unions.

From a moral perspective, within a democratic society, it is legitimate to affirm fundamental community values. In Quebec, respect for the gender identity and sexual orientation of all people is a value that the practice of conversion therapy undermines.

From a medical perspective, conversion therapy is pseudoscience. Not only is it dangerous and degrading for the patient, but many studies have also proven that it does not work.

The Bloc Québécois recognizes that the groups promoting these practices are tiny and in a minority. Moreover, the Bloc wishes to state that respect for beliefs must go hand in hand with respect for differences and the assurance of equality among people. I would add that the Quebec and Canadian societies are distinct societies, but they have much in common, particularly in terms of values.

Also, it is fitting that, on a number of subjects, they agree and adopt concordant policies that move toward the advancement of rights. The Bloc Québécois acknowledges the Quebec government's initiative to protect human rights and welcomes Quebec justice minister Simon Jolin-Barrette's Bill 70. The bill aims to put an end to conversion therapy.

The Bloc Québécois is also pleased that the Canadian government recognizes by means of this bill that, as a democracy, it is appropriate to affirm shared values and pass laws that govern practices arising from beliefs that are in conflict with those values.

For all these reasons, the Bloc Québécois feels that the Criminal Code amendments in Bill C-6 are appropriate.

What is conversion therapy? Here is the definition from a Radio-Canada article:

Conversion therapy, or sexual reorientation therapy, is psychological or spiritual intervention meant to change a person's sexual orientation or gender identity with the use of psychotherapy, drugs or a combination of the two.

In Canada, 47,000 men belonging to a sexual minority have been subjected to conversion therapy. According to the World Health Organization, these practices are a serious threat to the health and well-being of affected people.

The Canadian Psychological Association says that conversion 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.

In 2009, the American Psychological Association released a study entitled “Resolution on Sexual Orientation Change Efforts”. According to the study, contrary to claims made by those who administer these treatments, they are ineffective and potentially harmful. The study also noted that attraction to individuals of the same sex is a normal variation of human sexual behaviour and that those who promote conversion therapy tend to have very conservative religious opinions. That might be the crux of the problem.

I would like to talk about an interesting point my colleague from Shefford raised. The government finally chose to not only prohibit conversion therapy but to criminalize it. According to people with first-hand experience, some of these therapies were more like torture than therapy.

I think 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 2021. 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 LGBTQ2S+ community, but it is clearly an important step in advancing the debate.

Today is May 31, and we only have 17 sitting days remaining before the break. As we know, Bill C-19, which will change how an election is held during a pandemic, was passed under a gag order. Parliament needs to act quickly. I think there is a good chance that an election will be called, and any bills left on the Order Paper would therefore die. As I said, we only have 17 days left to move forward with this bill and all the others.

I am thinking of my colleague from Drummond who has been working very hard to ensure that Bill C-10 is given priority in the House and that it passes quickly. There is also the Émilie Sansfaçon bill to increase EI sickness benefits from 15 weeks to 50 weeks. In the context of a serious illness, such as cancer, we must be able to do something. Now, the question is not whether we are for or against conversion therapy. I think we can agree that it has no place today.

The important thing now is to act urgently on this issue. We have a responsibility as parliamentarians to do so. We have no control over the timeline, since that is up to the government. If it were up to me, a government would have to complete all four years of its mandate and get through all of the debates that arise, so that bills can be carefully studied.

Bill C-6 on conversion therapy reminds us that we must act urgently. I urge all members of Parliament to reflect and remember that we still need to vote and the bill has to be sent to the Senate. We urgently need to move forward.

Also, we need to reflect on the importance of secularism, which is highly valued in Quebec. There are some ultra-conservative religious groups that are having a significant impact on people's lives. We have a moral responsibility to protect these individuals, given the rejection they often feel and the trauma that conversion therapy can cause. The purpose of this government bill is to provide protections.

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, there have been constituents in my riding who have contacted me with concerns about the bill similar to some that have been mentioned by others in the House. I have typically responded to them to say that, if I thought this bill would control speech between parents and children, or teachers and students, I would certainly not support the bill.

Has the member also had criticisms from within his own riding? Could he share what he might say to ensure that people are not unduly concerned about some of the things this bill does or does not do?

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be honest with my colleague from Calgary Rocky Ridge: As the member for Abitibi—Témiscamingue, I have not been contacted about this issue, because these matters have simply been dealt with in Quebec. This is not an issue of relevance to us.

However, it is worth being responsible in stating our position, so I would like to share with my colleague one of the answers I could have given. It is from the Conservative leader, who tweeted: “Let me be clear, conversion therapy has no place in Canada and should be banned”. To this he added, “Period. LGBTQ people have their place in the big Conservative family”.

I will not respond to that, but we get the gist of it. He continued, “…and I am committed to fighting this unacceptable and offensive practice. I will not compromise on that”.

That is probably the position I would take if one of my constituents contacted me about this issue.

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

Mr. Speaker, in response to the last Bloc colleague, the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan suggested there are concerns, so we should address these concerns and get the best of both worlds, but we have already done that. We went through the parliamentary process. It went to committee, and the committee decided that the concerns were not legitimate enough.

He then went on to criticize the Bloc members who had raised concerns during the committee, as though somehow they are not justified to vote in favour of it now because of the position they took during committee. In reality, all they are doing is exactly what the parliamentary process instructs us to do.

Would the member from the Bloc not agree that, despite the fact that some of the members of the Bloc may have had some objections during committee, ultimately they have come down on the side of supporting this legislation?

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I think there is an attempt to mislead the House into thinking the Bloc Québécois is divided on this issue. I think our position has been made very clear, namely that we must act, and act quickly, for the sake of human dignity.

I would also remind the hon. members of the words of the Liberal Minister of Diversity and Inclusion and Youth: “Evidence demonstrates that this is a practice that does not work. It's destructive, it's harmful and it should not exist.”

That is our position today, in 2021.

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to to hear that the Bloc is supporting this. I am happy to hear they want to see this move through the House expeditiously.

The member for Abitibi—Témiscamingue raised the issue of it going to the Senate. I am just wondering if he has any concerns with the unelected Senate and whether we could have just a handful of Conservative senators take on the Conservative attitude seen here, which seems to be that they support this bill, but they do not like some details because they want to have it both ways.

Is he concerned that the unelected Senate will then unfortunately block this bill before this Parliament ends?

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am going to tell you what I am especially concerned about.

I am concerned to hear and read comments like those of Mr. Buscemi of Quebec Life Coalition, who stated, “I cannot speak for therapists, but when someone does something that is right and a government says that it is wrong, I would tend to say that we need to do what is right and accept the consequences....Even if it means breaking the law”.

There is something else, and the member did mention it. We may have to have another debate in the House if the Senate does something to stop us from passing common sense bills like the one we are studying. We may have to have another debate in the House, a debate about abolishing the Senate.

[Karen Vecchio, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it truly is an honour to be standing here to speak about this very important bill, Bill C-6. As usual, I do my research, I write my notes and then I stand in the House of Commons and decide I am not going to talk about all the things in my notes, but will share some of the experiences I have had as an ally to the LGBTQ community, recognizing some of the relationships that I have built in this community as an ally and speak with their support.

Back in 2018, I was invited to view the documentary The Fruit Machine in Ottawa. The director brought forward this documentary speaking about what happened in the Canadian Armed Forces to members of the LGBTQ community from the 1950s up to the 1990s. It is their stories that we need to hear today; we need to talk about what actually happened.

To begin, I would like to thank Sarah Fodey for her work to bring this story to light. Sarah was the director of this documentary and stated:

I want people to leave this documentary angry that this [injustice] happened, and committed to talking about it in their own communities. I also want people to cry and laugh in parts of this film.... [Many of the survivors] have used humour as a way to cope, I suspect.... They are magnetic. You want to hear more from them because they make you laugh on the heels of making you cry. It's a beautiful combination.

We need to look at the history of discrimination against the LGBTQ community in Canada to reconcile what has happened and see how we can move forward. That is why Bill C-6 is something to move forward. I will be honest that there are some concerns. Those concerns are not so embedded in me that I feel we cannot overcome them, but I do understand some of them. We need to look at the history in Canada and what has happened to members of the LGBTQ community. We should have great shame. I know that back in 2018 there were formal apologies from all of the party leaders in the House to the members of the Canadian Armed Forces, the RCMP and some members of the civil service, who lost their positions and careers because they were identifying as members of the LGBTQ community.

I want to back go to the history. As I indicated, this goes back to when the fruit machine was being used. During the Cold War, Canada investigated federal employees and members of the Canadian Armed Forces deemed susceptible to blackmail by Soviet spies. This is 2021 and we do not see that anymore, but back then there was a huge concern that members of the LGBTQ community would be used as collateral. They would be used and held as collateral and they did not know what to do in those positions.

Homosexuality was grounds for surveillance and interrogation by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police under the directive of the newly established security panel. Over the course of four decades, thousands of men and women had their privacy invaded, their careers ruined and their lives destroyed because of this scientific machine and a disgraceful mandate that was put forward.

We ask what this machine was all about. To be honest, when we look at it, we can say it is like conversion therapy. They used this machine. They would hook people up and see whether their pupils dilated. For three years, members of the Canadian Armed Forces, the RCMP and the civil servants were put into this situation and had to prove they were not members of the LGBTQ community. This fruit machine was being used to test them, just like a lie detector machine. They were asked personal questions. The types of responses they gave, whether were they stressed or lying, were looked at. We have to understand the discrimination that so many members of this community had gone through while all they were trying to do was serve our great country.

The development of this machine was very riveting. Lots of people wanted to know about it, but it was a failure and after three years, its use was discontinued. The fruit machine story captures the imagination and is truly symbolic of what members of the LGBTQ community were feeling, like conversion therapy. I look at these two things as coinciding.

I look at the way members of our Canadian Armed Forces were treated and think of a story that was published in The Washington Post by Todd Ross, who was in naval combat. I want to read this to look at what we have done in Canada, how we can do better and how this bill would move us forward.

It states:

Todd Ross was a naval combat information operator on the HMCS Saskatchewan in 1989 when he was called out over the public address system, escorted off the destroyer by officers and told he was the subject of an espionage probe.

Over the next 18 months, Ross was given six polygraph tests and interrogated about his sexual orientation and loyalty to Canada.

Eventually, he broke down. Facing a two-way mirror, he admitted to a stranger what he had not yet told some close confidants.

“Yes,” Ross said. “I'm gay.”

The 21-year-old seaman was given an ultimatum: Accept an honourable discharge or lose his security clearance, effectively extinguishing any prospect of career advancement. He chose the discharge and returned home to New Brunswick, where only a few years earlier he had been named the province’s top army cadet.

Ross was one of thousands who lost careers in the armed forces, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and other government agencies during the country’s notorious “gay purge” from the 1950s to the 1990s. A legal challenge brought the policy to an end in 1992. Now its victims are gaining greater recognition.

I want to talk about the person who actually started this process. I have been so fortunate to meet her, not only at the status of women committee as a witness, but also through this work she has done on the LGBTQ purge. Her name is Michelle Douglas. Many people are probably very familiar with Michelle Douglas here in Ottawa and the great work that she has done for the LGBTQ community. She was talking about her time in the Canadian Armed Forces. I want to read from a committee report. It said:

The Committee heard testimony that was consistent with the findings of the Deschamps Report: many witnesses described a sexualized and male-dominated workplace where a culture of abuse, discrimination and harassment based on gender, gender expression and sexual orientation exists. Women and individuals who identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, two-spirit or as other gender identities and sexual orientations...are disproportionately affected by sexual misconduct and harassment in the CAF. The Committee was told that, although there is a belief that the CAF is a “gender neutral” workplace, it is not the case. While women can perform brilliantly in military roles, some do so by conforming to and adopting “highly masculine behaviours and, for some, masculine world views, attitudes and values.” For this reason, witnesses stressed the need for cultural change to create a more respectful and inclusive workplace for all CAF members. Michelle Douglas, Chair of the LGBT Purge Fund, said:

I believe that the military's policy regarding inclusion, particularly towards women—both cisgender women and transgender women—is actually quite good. The military has, of course, all of the things that they must have: pay parity, access to career paths, family support and so on. The establishment of the Sexual Misconduct Response Centre is a good thing and so was the establishment [of things and practices to ensure that we can move forward.]

These are things that I want to talk about because I look at the fact that we are sitting here today and can see how far we have moved forward, but the journey is not over. For members of the LGBTQ community, it is a very important time. That is why I want to talk about what is occurring starting tomorrow, which is the beginning of pride month here in Canada.

I will be honest. Back in 2018, I was really excited to do 160,000 steps for pride. I had gone on the pride circuit and was joining members of the community across this country to celebrate who they are and the fact that they are just the same as me. They deserve the same rights, the same opportunities and equity in this great country.

As I said, pride is such an important time. With pride starting tomorrow, we have to understand where it started. This truly was a political movement. This was because of things that happened in places like the Canadian Armed Forces. We can also talk about New York and things that were happening down there.

This was born out of a fight for the rights of LGBTQ communities. We are doing a really good job when it comes to education, engagement and bringing people together to have these conversations. This is exactly why I am so proud to be a member of Parliament and to have great friends even within this chamber.

Outside the chamber, I also think of my dear friend Anthony who I love dearly and who should be clapping out there. It is great conversations with people like Anthony that help me move forward with my own thoughts. Having those types of conversations is very vital to understanding and education.

I will never walk in the shoes of a member of the LGBTQ community. I am a heterosexual woman who is married with five children. I have never been discriminated against because of who I have chosen to love, but I do understand that members of the LGBTQ community have. That is why I think we need to look at these important milestones.

We look back at 1969, when Canada decriminalized homosexual acts through the Criminal Law Amendment Act. Then we look at some things that happened in 1971. There was the first gay rights protest. Across the cities of Ottawa, Montreal and Toronto and in some smaller communities, hundreds of people gathered to protest and to bring forward the rights of LGBTQ communities. It was 1971. That was the year I was born. Fifty years later, we are still talking about it; we still can do better, and Bill C-6 is one of those ways.

I look at 1973, and pride week in 1973. It was a national LGBT rights event held in August 1973 in Ottawa, Vancouver, Toronto, Montreal, Saskatoon and Winnipeg, so even in two years we saw the growth of this.

However, there was still a lot of discrimination. We can look back at 1981 where, in Toronto there was Operation Soap. These were raids that took place. The police actually stormed bathhouses in Toronto and they arrested almost 300 men for being gay. This was Canada's stonewall. We hear a lot about the stonewall that happened and the movement of pride in the United States that had started to occur in 1969. Operation Soap was one of the largest mass arrests in Canada, and it was over 35 years ago.

When we look at those things, what can we do? We know that the police officers have apologized. The Toronto police chief actually came out and formally apologized. Those are ways of making amends. Those are ways of bringing us together so that we can start having those conversations. Once in a while, it is okay to say, “I did not understand” or “I did not get it”. Understanding what some of these men had gone through during Operation Soap is so important, and I really thank them.

In 1988, here in our own House of Commons, MP Svend Robinson came out as the first openly gay member of Parliament. Today, I know that there are many others and I am so proud because, at the end of the day, we are all here representing Canadians. Regardless of who we love, we are all people first and that is what we always have to remember when we are having these conversations. We are all equal. It does not matter who one loves. We are equal.

In 1990, we saw that there was a change, and the indigenous community started to gather in this, and that is when the term “two-spirited” was coined. This was just taking in the concept that when we are speaking about LGBTQ, we understand the rights of the indigenous people who are also of this community.

In 1995, sexual orientation was included in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. These are things that are progressively getting better, making things better for all Canadians. I am so proud of that. We do know that back in 2000, once again there was another raid. This took place in Toronto and it was a lesbian nightclub that police raided this time. We ask, “why did they do this?” It was because people were homophobic. People were concerned with people's actions and sexual orientation. To me, it is no one else's business.

However, as we are talking about this, I do understand also some of the concerns I am hearing from those who are saying there needs to be a better definition. I can still have that conversation. I know that many members in this chamber will sit there and say someone is either right or is wrong. Sometimes they do not have to be right or wrong. Sometimes, there is just something that is so minute that it could make things a bit better. I was listening to my friend from Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan and I know he is always pushing for just a bit better.

The reason I am looking at this is the testimony that was brought forward in committee. Timothy Keslick is an ASL-English interpreter. I want to read his introductory statement. It is just a little phrase, but this is where we need to talk and this is where talking always comes out better and we do not have to think of it as conversion therapy. Sometimes it is just understanding. In Timothy's opening statement, he stated:

Under this bill, this kind of therapy would be taken away from me. The bill doesn't make any distinctions between good therapy or bad therapy. The bill would capture my therapy as one that wants to reduce non-heterosexual attraction or, more specifically, sexual behaviour. Without realizing that my therapy isn't actually trying to stop me from dating any guy, it's simply trying to stop me from dating the wrong guy. It's there trying to help me avoid people and situations that would harm me and have already harmed me.

That is why I wanted to bring this up. When we talk about this, there are so many discrepancies on what conversations are, what “talk” is. I do understand. When we see bills like Bill C-10 that are just so poorly written come out from this House of Commons, I understand why many people will say that they cannot trust the current government, that they do not think the government is going to do exactly what they want.

That is why, when I look at this bill, I understand how the government so poorly writes legislation. I get it. It does not mean I have to agree with it, but I understand why there is some conflict within people.

If we look at Bill C-10, for instance, we know that it needs an amendment, but when the government gets the idea that it is right, it doubles down. On this bill it has doubled, tripled and quadrupled down. At the end of the day, I think it is so imperative that we have open and honest discussion. This is why we are having this discussion on what is good and what is bad therapy.

When we are talking about families, I think therapy helps remove the stigma, which is probably one of the most impressive things I have seen over the last couple of years. With COVID, we see that a number of people need to talk to people. I need to talk to people. My colleagues need to talk to people. Once in a while, we just need to bounce an idea off somebody else who is not a family member, or we need to bounce something off somebody who has been in the same situation.

I think of my own case. I do not know of any members of my family who are LGBTQ, and that is fine. Regardless, I am saying it is important that we have these conversations with our children, that freedom of conversation. I think of my son, who will be 18 years old in two weeks. It is important that I talk to him about sex. Members may ask why I want to talk to my 18-year-old about sex. It is because I want to ensure that he understands consent. I want to ensure he understands how to treat a woman. I want to ensure that he has a healthy relationship.

I have come from unhealthy relationships in the past and that is not a good thing. It takes a lot of time for people to be able to find that bright light, so sometimes having these talks is exactly what somebody may need. That is why when I hear some of my colleagues say that Bill C-6 is not a good bill, I understand why they would say the government writes poor legislation. We want to get it right.

I want to go back more to pride, the members of the LGBTQ community and why I will be supporting this bill overall. I look at the fact we have seen things such as the fruit machine here in Canada. We have seen this in our own backyards, where members of the RCMP, the Canadian Armed Forces and members who serve this great country were told they could not participate because they were gay or lesbian.

There is no space in this world or this country for people to not have equal opportunities because they are gay and lesbian. To me it does not matter who people love, as long as they can love. Those are the things I look at. These are the conversations we should be able to have, but because it is so political, we cannot have them all the time.

I have walked on behalf of the LGBTQ community out there, supporting it as an ally, because I know it is the right thing to do. I know that discrimination continues to happen. I have been in pride parades and had people yelling at me for walking in them.

I felt shame for that person who was yelling at me for walking in that parade, but I was so proud to be walking with those other thousands of people who are walking in them. If I am being yelled at as a heterosexual, I can only imagine how the people of that community feel. Sometimes that is what we need to look at.

This is about compassion. It is about how we help people. It is not about changing their sexual orientation. I do not believe that is something we should be focusing on. I believe in healthy lifestyles. I believe in healthy relationships. I believe in talk therapy when it is good therapy, not bad therapy.

I do not support conversion therapy and I never will, but I thank everybody for having these conversations, and I ask that we do better once in a while. When we have these conversations, let us not tell people they are wrong just because they are a Conservative. Instead, let us figure it out and find a way of getting there together. Unfortunately, in this place, sometimes we find that extraordinarily difficult.

I will be supporting Bill C-6. It is not perfect, but I believe in the principle. I feel eternally inside of me that I must support members of the LGBTQ community, and that is what I will do.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

The hon. member for Elgin—Middlesex—London will have 10 minutes for questions and comments when the House next gets back to debate on the question.

The House resumed from May 31 consideration of the motion that Bill C-6, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (conversion therapy), be read the third time and passed.

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford.

It is always an honour to rise in the House, even the virtual House, on behalf of the people of Skeena—Bulkley Valley. In fact, in some ways it is even more significant to rise on their behalf in this way because, if I turn my head to the right, I can see the people of this wonderful place walking by outside my office, and it reminds me of the sacred responsibility that I have to do well by them in this place.

I have spoken to LGBTQ youth about what it was like growing up in small rural towns in northern British Columbia. Most of them who grew up in towns like Smithers, where I live, in the 1980s and 1990s say it was not a very tolerant place. Many of them left as soon as they could, off to places where they were more free to be themselves. That is changing, and that is a very good thing.

My office is half a block down from Smithers’s rainbow crosswalk, first painted in 2016. As mayor at the time, I was proud to help make the crosswalk happen, but really it was the work of a woman named Anna Ziegler, who wrote to council and got the ball rolling on that initiative.

In the following years it has been repainted, and of course, in northern B.C., these things have to be repainted because of our harsh winters, and the road sand and salt that gets put down every year. In the following years the crosswalk was repainted by the fabulous leaders of the local Girl Guides patrol, who had to don Tyvek suits and respirators to survive the perils of the industrial road paint. It was quite a scene.

A couple of years later, in 2018, the group Smithers Pride was formed and the community’s first community-wide pride event was held. At the time, Safeway and the BCGEU teamed up to hold a barbecue. We blocked off the street and it was a wonderful event. I thought it might be northern B.C.'s first pride event, but then I learned that the tiny village of Masset on Haida Gwaii not only has a pride event, but it has four rainbow crosswalks.

I mention all of this because the community where I live, and indeed our entire region, is becoming a place where everyone, no matter their sexuality or gender identity or expression, receives the full measure of respect, belonging, safety and rights, and it is worth celebrating.

This month is pride month, a good month to be conducting this final debate on this important bill before us. Before I talk about the bill itself, I want to recognize some of the folks who have been leading the way when it comes to making my home community a more inclusive place, especially Perry Rath, who is a teacher at Smithers Secondary School, and Brianna van Donselaar, Sophie Perodeau and Sarah Payne. I thank them for the important work they have done and continue to do.

Bill C-6 is about protecting people from a practice that has no place in our society. Let us be clear about what conversion therapy is. The definition in the bill before us calls it, “a practice, treatment or service designed to change a person’s sexual orientation to heterosexual, to change a person’s gender identity or gender expression to cisgender or to repress or reduce non-heterosexual attraction or sexual behaviour or non-cisgender gender expression.”

I read the Department of Justice’s charter statement on Bill C-6, and its description of the harms of conversion therapy is worth repeating here, because it underlines, I believe, why this bill is so important:

Conversion therapy has been denounced by medical and psychological professionals as being ineffective and the source of harm and potential harm. Conversion therapy has resulted, or risks resulting, in harms such as distress, anxiety, depression, stigma, shame, negative self-image, a feeling of personal failure, difficulty sustaining relationships, sexual dysfunction and having serious thoughts or plans of—or attempting—suicide. Its continued existence also harms the dignity of LGBTQ2 people by perpetuating myths and stereotypes based on sexual orientation or gender identity—in particular, that the sexual orientation or gender identity of LGBTQ2 people is undesirable and can and should be changed.

The harms of conversion therapy are clear and well established. This practice has no place in a free, tolerant society such as Canada's, and it is incumbent upon all of us as elected representatives to protect the SOGI community from these harms. Everyone in Canada should be free to love whom they love and be who they are, free from stigma, intolerance and coercion.

Bill C-6 would ban the following: causing an individual to undergo conversion therapy against their will; causing a child to undergo conversion therapy; removing a child from Canada to undergo conversion therapy abroad; receiving a financial or other material benefit from the provision of conversion therapy; and, finally, advertising and offering to provide conversion therapy.

It is clear that there are some Conservative members in this place who oppose the bill and will vote against it, and to be clear, I have met with constituents of mine who have deep misgivings. Most of these misgivings purport to be based on the notion that conversations or counsel between parents and children, or between pastors and those they counsel, could be wrongly caught up in the bill's provisions. These are fair considerations for us to discuss in the debate on this legislation.

However, I would note that the justice committee has addressed this by adding a “for greater certainty” clause that highlights what the definition of conversion therapy does not include, namely, “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”. I believe that this should provide some peace of mind as we move forward.

There are two other important amendments I will note. Changing “against a person's will” to the phrase “without consent” utilizes wording that is much more commonly used and understood. Importantly, broadening the scope of the definition of conversion therapy to include “gender identity” and “gender expression” not only makes it consistent with the language used in other legal protections, but also allows it to address new forums of conversion therapy.

I will end my remarks today by acknowledging the member for Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, whose work on the bill has been exemplary and who, sadly, has been the target of harassment and online hate for his work. He is a champion for the rights of the SOGI community, and his work in this place is creating a legacy of safety, inclusion and protection of fundamental rights. I thank the hon. member.

We have a decent bill in front of us that moves us forward as a country and would provide legal protection for people who deserve it. Love is love, and people deserve to simply be who they are. I will end by mentioning that I spoke about the bill to my 16-year-old daughter. I told her that Parliament was working to make conversion therapy illegal. She said, “You mean it's legal?” That is exactly what I think as well.

I wish members a happy pride month. Now let us make this law.

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

Mr. Speaker, this is pride month, and I am sure that this member celebrates pride in his community, as we have been trying to do in my community.

One of the things we did was send out pride posters throughout our community to some 1,500 people who wanted to hang them in their windows. I got an email this morning, which I will read. It says:

MP [for Kingston and the Islands],

Thank you SO MUCH for the Pride poster! One of my teenagers is a member of the LGBTQ+ community. I ordered one of your Pride posters without thinking too much about it. I didn't realize it would be so moving for my daughter. It wasn't just that we hung a Pride poster, it was that her own MP provided it and is promoting Pride in our community. She felt seen and valued, by her family and by her government. It provoked a really beautiful conversation and we ended up ordering some additional Pride-related flags. My girl hugged me with tears in her eyes and thanked me for being so supportive.

This bill is about so much more than just banning a harmful practice. It is about changing the attitude and the way that Canadians engage, in particular, with the LGBTQ community.

Can the member provide some insight into why he thinks that having these conversations is so important to changing awful stereotypes that were, unfortunately, more predominant a few decades ago?

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his words and I share his sentiments.

At my constituency office here in Smithers we are proud to have an ally sticker on the front door of our office to show our allyship and our support for the fundamental rights of LGBTQ people in our community.

This bill has created a very important conversation in our communities about what inclusion, acceptance and the rights that people have really mean. I think that is a very positive thing and I look forward to building on that as we move forward together.

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

Mr. Speaker, I think members would agree with many of the sentiments the member expressed. I appreciate the fact that he acknowledges the concerns he has been hearing from some of his constituents with respect to the definition and the desire for greater clarity on that definition.

The member spoke about the “for greater certainty” clause that reflected an NDP amendment at committee. In my view, the “for greater certainty” clause does not provide the greater certainty he alleges. It effectively says that personal opinions are fine as long as they conform to a certain structure: as long as those personal opinions are within certain defined parameters. It is not a general exception for people to be able to express personally held views outside of a quasi-therapeutic context. It is an exception that says conversion therapy does not include personally held views as long as those personally held views are within this particular box. There may be many views that are expressed in private conversations about these issues that I disagree with or that he disagrees with.

Are people not asking for a greater certainty clause that actually says private conversations people have about their views on this, that or the other thing are not going to lead to criminal prosecution?

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I do not believe that private conversations constitute a practice, first of all, but there may a point on which we disagree with respect to what the member mentioned, which is this. One thing I have learned through this debate, and I admit going into it I did not have a very deep knowledge of conversion therapy, is that a lot of conversion therapy takes place in the shadows. I think we have to ask ourselves, even in the context of conversations between pastors and their faithful or between parents and their children, where the boundaries are with respect to what would constitute conversion therapy. Perhaps in the future the courts will have to weigh in as to where those boundaries are, but I think in this bill it is important for us to state clearly that this is about protecting people and their rights, and that we should not be trying to convince people that they are something other than they are.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his commitment to stand against coercive and abusive therapies on behalf of vulnerable Canadians.

As 72% of Canadians who were polled support a wait-and-see approach for counselling young people, that means the support is for the right of parents to delay medical treatments for a gender transition until the child is mature enough to understand their repercussions.

Does the member believe that parents should preserve that right or that children as young as age seven or eight have the cognitive ability to understand the impact puberty blockers will have on their health in years to come?

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, today's debate is about conversion therapy and those practices that seek to change people from who they are: from the identity, expression and orientation they hold to something other. I appreciate the gist of the member's question; however, I think it departs fairly significantly from the content of the debate before us.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague, the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley, for sharing his time today.

At the outset, I will acknowledge the LGBTQ community in my riding of Cowichan—Malahat—Langford. I want to put this in the context of the privilege I have of serving as member of Parliament for this beautiful part of Vancouver Island, but also the great responsibility that comes with that. As members of Parliament, we have the power and responsibility to stand up for people in our ridings and communities and across the country who have traditionally been on the margins, who have not been recognized as equals by large parts of Canadian society, and who have been actively discriminated against in the past through our laws and policies.

That is one of the things that we members of Parliament have to do. We have to stand on this incredible stage in the House of Commons to do what we can to change this country so that everyone is equal no matter who they love or what their social background, race or origin. We have to stand up and be champions for every member of our communities. I take very seriously that responsibility and the privilege I have had over the last nearly six years in this role.

We are speaking today about the government's Bill C-6. I want to acknowledge and thank the Minister of Justice for bringing forward Bill C-6. I know he held many consultations. My NDP colleague, the member for Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, was part of those consultations and I would like to thank him for his advocacy in the House.

The bill before us, Bill C-6, would amend the Criminal Code. It got me thinking about federal criminal law power in general, because it is a powerful tool of the federal government. We know from previous rulings of the Supreme Court of Canada that a valid criminal law power requires, number one, a prohibition; number two, a penalty; and number three, a valid criminal law purpose. Those have been traditionally listed as peace, order, security, morality and health. Those are the broad areas in which federal criminal law power can be applied.

Bill C-6 and the practice it is trying to prohibit fall very clearly under security and morality, because it is so morally wrong to force people to undergo a change from who they are. It also applies under section 7 of the charter: security of the person. Individuals are being denied security of the person by being forced to go through conversion therapy. We know this is an extremely harmful practice. We have heard testimony about how it has ruined lives. As many members who have spoken to Bill C-6 before me have said, when I speak with constituents they always express surprise that this practice is still ongoing in Canada.

Reparative or conversion therapy is a very dangerous practice that targets LGBTQ youth and seeks to change their sexual or gender identities. It has sometimes been called reparative therapy, but I hate the fact that we are even using the word “therapy”. Therapy, in my mind and I think in the minds of most Canadians, indicates a practice or some sort of counselling that is going to help someone get to a better place. This does not do that in any way. It is a range of dangerous and discredited practices that falsely claim to change a person's sexual orientation or gender identity or expression and it has been found by all experts to be fraudulent and harmful. In fact, the practice has been rejected by every mainstream medical and mental health organization for decades, but because there is continuing discrimination and societal bias against LGBTQ people, some practitioners continue to conduct this practice.

We know that minors are especially vulnerable, and that being forced to undergo conversion therapy leads them to experience depression, anxiety, drug use, homelessness and, in worst cases, death by suicide. We heard powerful testimony at the justice committee from survivors of conversion therapy, even before the bill began its formal process of debate, documenting what this practice had done to their lives. The fact that it is still going on in Canada leads to a lot of shock.

To show how much the world has changed in a short time, but also the changes that we still need to see, until 1990 homosexuality was considered by the World Health Organization to be a mental disorder. Today we are in the unfortunate position where gay sex remains illegal in 68 nations around the world. In those countries homosexuality has very serious penalties, including the death penalty and complete ostracization from mainstream society.

Canada has an important role to play on the world stage to show that we accept people for who they are and that we do not judge. We also have to be a voice of moral clarity on the world stage and speak out against those harmful practices. We do that to some extent.

The societal pressure of forcing gay and trans people to become heterosexual, or to be some kind of a societal norm, has been extremely harmful. Many conversion therapy practices have been based on religion, and have included talk therapy, hypnosis and, in some cases, electrical shocks and fasting.

It is incumbent upon us in the House of Commons, as the people's elected representatives, to recognize how harmful this practice is and to make our voices heard and say, “No more.” We are going to use the full force of the federal criminal law power, make a stand and declare how harmful this practice is, and we are going to take steps to prohibit it.

Particular sections of the bill include prohibitions against forced conversion therapy, against causing a child to undergo conversion therapy, against advertising conversion therapy and against materially benefiting from conversion therapy.

I want to take a moment to address the concerns that have been raised by some of my colleagues in the House. In each of those prohibitions, we see the phrase “conversion therapy.” This bill has taken the time to provide a definition of what conversion therapy is. In response to some of the current concerns, the greater certainty clause of that definition was expanded, and it now says it does not include:

The exploration and development of an integrated personal identity without favouring any particular sexual orientation, gender identity or gender expression.

That means the definition does not include a practice, treatment or service that relates to those specific things. This helps provide that clarity for conversations between parents and their kids, church ministers and parishioners or people who simply want to have that conversation in a semi-formal setting. It does not in any way prohibit conversations from occurring.

In my mind at least, I believe that the concerns have been dealt with, and the harms that come from this practice warrant that this bill be passed.

In conclusion, I would like to say clearly and unequivocally that I will be supporting Bill C-6, and I hope my colleagues will join me so we can send this to the other place for royal assent in short order.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

The hon. member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford will have five minutes for questions and comments when the House next returns to debate on the motion.

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

[The Speaker, Anthony Rota]

I wish to inform the House that because of the deferred recorded divisions, Government Orders will be extended by 16 minutes.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan.

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

Mr. Speaker, if Parliament is seeking to ban something, then it is very important that Parliament clearly know and understand what it is banning. Parliament should be careful to precisely identify the things that it wishes to ban so not to accidentally, through sloppy legislative drafting or through the mal-intent of some and the fear of others, ban things that it does not officially intend to ban.

Whatever may be said about the government's intention in banning something, good intentions are clearly not enough. If it is banning a thing, then it must correctly identify the thing that it wishes to ban, and ban that and that alone.

A legislature might wish, for example, to ban violence, but in the process accidentally also ban legitimate acts of self-defence. A legislature might legitimately wish to ban certain toxic substances, but should still be careful to consider the reasonableness of exceptions, considering all the cases in which those substances are used, such as research or secure technological applications.

If the government said that it was going to take tough measures to combat hard drugs, I would likely support those measures. However, if it miswrote the definition of hard drugs to include all potentially addictive substances, including caffeine or alcohol, then I would vote against those measures. It is not because I do not want to stop the use of hard drugs, but because I would object to the misuse of that term to apply to things which were not in fact hard drugs.

It should be a simple thing to say, in general, that when legislation is debated, the details matter, yet too often the rhetoric we hear from the other side invokes good intentions as the beginning and the end of the argument. When powerful people, in this case parliamentarians, do sloppy or imprecise work, even with good intentions, the results can be disastrous.

The government says that this is a bill to ban conversion therapy, so then what is conversion therapy? As I have said, if we are to ban it, then we must first know what it is and how it will be defined in law. This conversation, in general, has been frustrated by the fact that the government toggles back and forth between two very different definitions. One definition is what conversion therapy has actually meant for as long as the term has been used up until the tabling of the legislation. The other is the definition that has been used in the bill. These are two very different definitions. We are on the verge of banning the wrong thing, based on a bad definition.

Let us first look at the historical or traditional definition of what constitutes conversion therapy. About 100 years ago, the world saw the emergence of pseudoscientific practices which purported to change a person's sexual orientation. These involved the use of a medley of coercion, shaming, violence, physical and psychological abuse, electric shock, ice baths, hyper-sexualized heterosexual experiences, etc.

When this matter was first raised in the House, I spent some time reading, watching and listening to stories of people who had been victims of conversion therapy, and was absolutely horrified by the experiences that some people described. Conversion therapy is wrong and it should be banned, and we should be clear about why.

It is not illegal to have an opinion about when, where or how people should have sex. Indeed, it is quite normal for people to make choices about sexual behaviour and to, in certain cases, choose to limit their own sexual experiences based on whatever factors they think are important or to share their opinions about these matters with those around them. If there was something wrong with giving advice about when to have or not to have sex, we would be driving a whole industry of therapists and relationship advice columnists out of business.

However, conversion therapy is something totally different. We can all agree, I hope, that degrading people, making them feel less valuable or less human because of sexual or romantic feelings or behaviour is never acceptable. A belief in universal immutable human dignity is foundational to our way of life. Nobody's orientation or behaviour justifies subjecting them to violence, bullying or degradation.

If we were actually working to try to get consensus in this place, then that really could be the basis for an agreement. Conversion therapy, as it has been historically defined and understood, is a bad thing, is contrary to human dignity and should be banned. I think we actually all agree on that.

Notably, there has, for a number of years, been a conversion therapy ban in the municipality where I live. The definition of conversion therapy used in Strathcona County's bylaw on the subject is as follows:

“Conversion Therapy” means an attempt to change an individual’s sexual orientation, gender identity, gender preference, or gender expression; an attempt to convert an individual from one orientation, identity, preference, or expression to another. Conversion therapy includes various physical treatments, chemical or hormonal treatments, drug treatments, counselling, or behaviour modification through shaming or emotionally coercive or traumatic stimuli. Conversion therapy does not include clinical assessment and treatment by a medical professional that explores all aspects of an individual’s sexual orientation, gender identity, gender preference, or gender expression, or that explores an age- or developmental-level-appropriate use of gender transition to align an individual’s anatomical features with the individual’s gender identity.

That is a pretty good definition. Any time this sort of thing is put in criminal law, it probably requires an extra level of scrutiny beyond what could happen at the municipal level. However, I would generally credit our municipal leaders in getting it right. They were able to write a definition that identified conversion therapy as pertaining to a quasi-therapeutic context in which a change to sexual orientation or other characteristics is brought about through shaming, emotional coercion or traumatic stimuli.

The work of this one municipal council made up of nine people shows us that it is possible to get the definition right. That is where we should be in terms of definitions when we talk about banning conversion therapy.

However, Bill C-6 uses a false definition of conversion therapy. As amended at committee, with the amendments carrying the support of Liberal and NDP members only, it now defines conversion therapy as:

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

There are three important distinctions between the definition used by my local municipal council, the mayor of which, by the way, is a former Liberal candidate, which is well aligned with the proper and historic definition of conversion therapy, versus the one used by Bill C-6.

First, the definition in Bill C-6 does not refer to any pseudo-therapeutic context. There is no clear definition of what would or would not constitute a practice, treatment or service. As we pointed out at committee, a key principle of law is that the legislature does not speak in vain, so each of these three things would be understood to be different. A service is more than just a treatment and a practice is something other than a treatment or service. A thing could be any of these three things and still be considered conversion therapy according to Bill C-6, although not according to my local municipal bylaw.

Second, there is no reference to coercion, degrading treatment, traumatic stimuli, etc. being part of conversion therapy. Therefore, again, conversion therapy could simply be a word, a statement or a conversation according to Bill C-6, although not according to my municipal bylaw.

Third, and most important, the definition in Bill C-6 includes references to advice or therapy that seeks to modify sexual behaviour as opposed to sexual orientation, and this is a really radical departure. For the first time, it says that advice or statements that do not seek to change orientation or identity but simply advise about sexual behaviour could be considered conversion therapy as well.

Without limiting the definition of conversion therapy to a pseudo-therapeutic context, a simple, informal conversation between two people could be deemed conversion therapy, depending on what it is. For a conversation to cross the line into conversion therapy, according to the definition used in the bill, it would not be necessarily pushing a change in orientation, but simply suggesting some modification of sexual behaviour. This is now being called conversion therapy in this new definition invented by Bill C-6.

Therefore, let me make this concrete. Suppose that a close friend of mine comes to me for advice and confides that he is having some serious challenges in his relationship and those challenges have led him to be unfaithful to his partner. Suppose I encourage my friend to be faithful to his partner and stop cheating or suppose I encourage this friend to break up with his partner and just focus on himself for a while. Now, if, in this hypothetical situation, my friend is straight, then I have broken no law. However, if my friend is gay, then my advice to him has violated the law, because by enjoining him to either reduce his number of sexual partners or to be single for a while, I have engaged in a practice that seeks to reduce non-heterosexual sexual behaviour. The definition of conversion therapy in Bill C-6 is so broad that it would apply precisely to that conversation.

We can hope that I would never be prosecuted for simply giving a gay friend relationship advice, but suppose that similar advice were given by a mentor or a counsellor perhaps to a young person. It is not, I imagine, uncommon for parents or mentors to advise young people in terms of partner reduction, fidelity in relationships, waiting before becoming sexually active, etc. As a young person, I certainly was a recipient of this sort of advice from time to time. However, since any of this advice if given to a gay person would constitute a practice seeking to reduce non-heterosexual sexual behaviour, it could run afoul of criminal law.

To summarize, we have two different operating definitions of conversion therapy: the historic and proper definition, and the false definition in Bill C-6, which extends the term “conversion therapy” to many ordinary conversations, many of which, as the one I described, are not the sort of thing that any reasonable person would want to prevent from occurring.

In light of this simple and very fixable problem, Canadians began to speak out, and my office launched a petition, all with a very simple message: fix the definition. Just fix the definition and then we can all support the bill.

Recently some members of other parties have tried to attack the motivation of those who are concerned about the definition. They have claimed that we are just looking for an excuse to vote against the bill. For those who are levelling this challenge, I would say, “Please, call our bluff.” If they think we are just looking for an excuse to vote against the bill, then why not accept the reasonable amendments we are putting forward and then see what happens?

I am generally loath to give the government political advice, but if the Liberals believe there are members of the House who actually want to oppose a conversion therapy ban, then they should endeavour to address at least the more obvious problems of the definition and thus leave those who allegedly wish to oppose the bill without excuse. Then those who have allegedly been using this excuse simply as an excuse would find themselves in a real bind if the government were to accept some reasonable amendments.

If the Liberals did so, of course, they would find in reality that the bill would pass unanimously. I think at this stage it is obvious that they know this, and that they would rather leave in the definitional problems that we have pointed out, so as to create a political wedge. Sadly, though, it is a political wedge that will potentially cause serious problems for the rights and freedoms of Canadians in terms of the freedom to simply share personal opinions about sex and relationships, even in private.

When this bill came to a vote at second reading, I made the decision to abstain. It was a difficult decision, because I generally do not like to abstain. I worked hard to get here and nobody can vote on behalf of the people of my riding in my stead.

However, there are cases where it is particularly challenging to cast a ballot at the second reading stage of a bill, because while third reading involves a vote on the final text of a bill, second reading is generally thought of as a vote on the principle or objectives of the bill. For those watching these proceedings who may be less familiar with the legislative process, every bill goes through second reading debate and a vote where the general principle of the bill is considered. After that, the bill is refined by committee and then it returns to the House of Commons for a debate and vote at the third and final reading where MPs must consider not only the intention of the bill, but also its substance and text.

Making a judgment at third reading is relatively straightforward, because one is considering the text of the bill in final form. However, making a judgment at second reading about the objective of the bill requires me to evaluate the government’s unspoken intention. Do I agree with what it seems to be trying to do in spite of the technical flaws in a piece of legislation, such that I will support it going forward for further consideration, or do I determine that the flaws in the bill are there by design and demonstrate a policy decision of the government to draft the bill in an overbroad way?

It is sometimes impossible to resolve the question of what the true intent of a bill is without being able to read minds. Ultimately, being unable to resolve this question of the government’s true intention, cognizant of the importance of banning conversion therapy but unconvinced that the flawed definition was simply a drafting error, I decided to abstain from the bill, hoping that I would have an opportunity to vote for it at third reading after committee study.

I had hoped for the best. I had hoped the professions at second reading of a desire to get this right and clear up any ambiguities would turn out to be sincere. When this bill went to committee, it attracted significant public attention and interest, so much so that the committee received close to 300 written briefs from various stakeholders and concerned members of the public. Liberals on the justice committee sadly made a mockery of the committee process by refusing to even allow enough time to read those briefs, refusing to incorporate reasonable concerns and table-dropping amendments to actually make the problems with the definition even worse.

At that stage, where various amendments were considered, Conservative members put forward reasonable amendments that sought to fix the definition. These were opposed by the Liberals and the NDP, who, in the process, also tipped their hand about their true intentions. I noted in particular the comments of the member for Etobicoke—Lakeshore in response to one of the reasoned Conservative amendments.

Conservatives proposed an amendment taking language directly from the Department of Justice website, clarifying that the definition of conversion therapy would not apply “to the expression of views on sexual orientation, sexual feelings or gender identity, such as where teachers, school counsellors, pastoral counsellors, faith leaders, doctors, mental health professionals, friends or family members provide support to persons struggling with their sexual orientation, sexual feelings or gender identity”. This amendment would have taken a big step to addressing the problems in the definition, but when this amendment was put forward, the member for Etobicoke—Lakeshore said, “I'm concerned that this amendment would defeat the purpose of the bill."

Again, during the final stage of the committee study, when Conservatives proposed an amendment that simply sought to clarify in the definition that conversion therapy would not apply “to the expression of views on sexual orientation, sexual feelings or gender identity,” a Liberal member admitted that the adoption of this amendment would defeat the purpose of the bill.

I thought that the purpose of the bill was to ban conversion therapy, not to restrict the expression of personal views on issues involving sexuality. However, this was a clear admission from the government side that restriction on the expression of views is at least part of the purpose of this bill.

I want to salute the hard work of Conservative members on the justice committee, but also to recognize the member for Rivière-du-Nord, the Bloc member on the committee. I suspect that there are many issues on which he and I will disagree, but I know that he took his role on the committee to study and improve the legislation very seriously.

It was the member for Rivière-du-Nord who noted at the beginning of clause-by-clause consideration that the committee had received hundreds of briefs from members of the public that had only been translated and distributed the day before. He noted that it would have shown a necessary level of respect for the public who had submitted these briefs to delay clause-by-clause for one meeting, allowing members to review the briefs and incorporate insights contained therein. Conservatives supported this Bloc member’s motion to allow time for members to review the briefs that had been submitted. This motion was defeated by the Liberals and the NDP, who insisted on proceeding with clause-by-clause without reviewing the briefs.

Ironically, after this bill was considered that day at the justice committee and referred to the House, the government has not even scheduled the bill for a full day of debate until last week, more than five months after its adoption by committee. Therefore, no time would have been lost at all by delaying the clause-by-clause so as to allow members to consider the input from the public, as suggested by the member for Rivière-du-Nord.

The fact is that government voted against this proposal because it did not want to hear the constructive suggestions put forward by the hundreds of Canadians and Canadian organizations that had taken the time to submit briefs and information to the committee. After defeating this Bloc motion, the government worked with the NDP, table-dropping an amendment that significantly worsened the definition, from the perspective of clarity.

The amendment the Liberals put forward without prior notice added in the idea that conversation therapy includes an effort to reduce non-cisgender gender expression. What would constitute non-cisgender gender expression? Let me quote directly from the committee intervention of the member for Rivière-du-Nord at committee. He said—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

Just a moment, I have a point of order.

The hon. member for Drummond.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, I wish to intervene because we often talk about how much we value the work of our interpreters.

If my colleague could speak a little slower, it would give the interpreters a chance to do their job more easily and perhaps a little more accurately. That would make it easier for us to follow our colleague's speech.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

It is very important for us to have interpretation. I must therefore support the request that was just made and ask the hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan to speak more slowly, because it is very important for the interpreters.

I would like to take this opportunity to remind all members who have their speech written up to send a copy to the interpreters. This helps them follow what is said more closely.

The hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan.

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

Madam Speaker, on the same point of order. I appreciate the point. I wonder if you can tell me how much time I have left because that will allow me to calibrate how fast I need to speak, but I do want to share with you it is a good point of advice to share the text with the interpreters and I have done that in this case.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

The hon. member has four and a half minutes. The time has stopped for the point of order. I do want to advise the member that I understand it is not just about the interpretation; it is very difficult for even the viewers to listen if the hon. member is talking too quickly. If it could be at a good pace, but not so quick that people cannot follow, that would be important. I am sure that the hon. member wants to make sure that everybody is able to hear and understand what he is saying.

The hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan.

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

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the feedback and will now continue with my speech.

I was quoting from the member for Rivière-du-Nord with respect to the addition of the reference to non-cisgender gender expression. He said:

The Department of Justice website states that “gender expression is the way in which people publicly present their gender. It is the presentation of gender through such aspects as dress, hair [,etc]...” If I go back to the text defining conversion therapy, I understand that the bill would prohibit any practices, treatments or services designed to repress that.

Here is the example that comes to my mind. Let's say that, in the morning before going to school, an eight-year-old boy decides to wear a dress. His mother might say yes, or she might say no. Either way, if we use that definition, it would be a criminal offence for a mother to tell her son that she does not want him to wear a dress and to force him to wear pants. That's the definition we are about to adopt, and I see a problem with it.

The same member said later:

I confess that, as a parent, I have told my daughter that she should not wear so much make-up. From what I understand, by engaging in that practice—and I do feel it can be considered a practice—I would have committed a criminal offence. I'm sure no one wants that.

Despite the serious concerns raised about this further expansion and confusion of this definition, this amendment on gender expression passed the committee by a vote of six to five.

The House has now received back from the committee a bill that is substantially worse than the one it was sent. This is because now it more clearly says any treatment, practice or service, which could be anything at all that involves an effort to reduce non-heterosexual, sexual behaviour or non-cisgender gender expression, so everything from advice about sexual and romantic activities to conversations about dress and make-up, could now very easily constitute a violation of criminal law.

The definition could have easily been fixed, but I think it was for political reasons the government chose not to, because if it fixed the definition then this bill would have had the unanimous support of the House, which would have deprived the government of the opportunity to use this issue to drive a political wedge.

At the end of the day, though, regardless of anyone's evaluation of the government's intention or political strategy here, we are now at third reading and are voting on the final text of the bill. We are not voting on aspirations or intentions, or on a response to conversion therapy as the term was historically defined. We are voting on a piece of legislation that would put many kinds of private conversations, counselling or advice about sex, relationships and anything captured by gender expression under Criminal Code scrutiny. This is fundamentally unacceptable in a free society.

Bill C-6, in its final form, is a bad bill. I will be voting against it and I encourage my colleagues to do likewise. Canadians are rightly disappointed by the politics being played by the Liberals by failing to work constructively with other parties to fix the flaws in the bill. For them, this is now clearly about trying to drive a political contrast rather than trying to get the bill right. The implications of that choice are the freedom of all Canadians to have conversations about sex and relationships being impaired if this bill passes. Such conversations are very different from conversion therapy but they are swept into it by this definition, as written.

We hear repeatedly from government members an effort to set up this false choice in terms of the debate. They try to tell us that we either have to pass this bill in its current form, yes criminalizing conversion therapy but also sweeping up all kinds of other things that have nothing to do with conversion therapy, or we do not pass it and we do not ban conversion therapy.

This is a false choice. This is a false choice of the government's own making. There is an alternative, which is the alternative Conservatives and other members have been calling for from the beginning of this conversation, which is for a clear ban on conversion therapy, a fixed definition and clarity that excludes the private conversations, the conversations that happen where individuals share their opinions about sexual behaviour.

We can have clear exclusions in line with the reasonable amendments proposed at committee and then we can get this done and passed and moving forward quickly. Everybody should want to see that happen, but the government is creating a false choice for political reasons. Let us reject that false choice. Let us fix the definition. I would submit there is still time. There is still time in this Parliament for us to work collaboratively across party lines to fix the definition and pass a clear, comprehensive conversion therapy ban that does not limit the rights and freedoms of people to have conversations about sexual behaviour.

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

Madam Speaker, I think, at least in my opinion, the majority of those who are against a ban on conversion therapy are most likely people who think one's sexual identity is a choice. I am just curious if this member can comment on how he views the situation. Does he believe somebody is born a certain way or does he believe their sexual identity is a choice they make in life?

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

Madam Speaker, I am very happy to say that I believe it is not a choice to have that identity. I do not know from personal experience, but this is what people who are friends of mine have told me and I certainly believe the things they share.

I am a bit reluctant to indulge the member for Kingston and the Islands, though, in going down this road of asking members “gotcha” questions about their personal views on these kinds of things. I answered the question. I was willing to answer the question, but I would encourage the member to take a step back from trying to look for those “gotcha” opportunities and instead look at the text of the bill. He has a responsibility not just to be the man who sits in the House and parrots government talking points but to actually look at the legislation that he is going to be voting on and to consider its substance and its impact. I would encourage him to do that. I would encourage him to take on that role and dig into the text of the bill and reflect on whether he would be willing to support some of the reasonable amendments that Conservatives and others have been talking about to fix the definition, work on a consensus and move forward on this.

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

Madam Speaker, I have a very simple question.

First, it bothers me that we are still debating certain details, when it is all very clear. We have spoken about these things for hours and have demonstrated the merits of the bill. To my mind, members are splitting hairs. Consultations have been held. We have reached this stage, and the majority are in agreement. This is urgent, because people are wondering why this bill has not yet passed.

I would like to know if my colleague has seen the 2018 film Boy Erased, which is about conversion therapy, the subject of the bill. If he has not, does he think he will watch it?

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

Madam Speaker, I have not had the opportunity to see the film that the member referred to. I appreciate the recommendation and, based on her recommendation, I will be happy to endeavour to access it and watch it. I gather the implication is that it shares the story of a person who has been through conversion therapy.

I do want to share with the member that, as I said in my speech, when this topic initially came up I made some efforts to look at and read other stories of people who had been victims of conversion therapy. I recall one story of a young woman who was forced to walk around with stones in a backpack. There were other aspects of the story as well that I found particularly affecting, and it formed my conviction that we need to ban conversion therapy. I believe that and I have said it over and over again. That is why I have asked the government to give us a bill that fixes these details so that we can all support it.

The member raised some questions about looking at details. I will say that her Bloc colleague on committee raised some of these questions about details. I quoted extensively from what I thought was the very good work of the Bloc MP. I understand the political impact on the Bloc, perhaps, when the government tries to create this false choice, but let us not accept that false choice. Let us work to fix the bill. Let us work on constructive amendments so that we can ban conversion therapy and address the problems with the definition.

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

Madam Speaker, my colleague mentioned that, as a result of the discussion around Bill C-6, he was asked about fixing the definition and that there was a web page put up.

Could he comment on what the reaction was from other members of the community across Canada?

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

Madam Speaker, it is very interesting to have conversations on this issue with people who are maybe from different kinds of political backgrounds. I recall one conversation I had with a constituent who phoned me upon hearing that I had concerns about Bill C-6. Initially she was very worried about that. We had a conversation for close to half an hour. At the end of that she said, “What you're saying is perfectly reasonable. Why doesn't the government just fix the definition?” I said, “I hope it does.”

This did not need to be an issue on which people disagree. It still does not need to be an issue on which people disagree. There are people all over the spectrum politically who have different assumptions, but we can all come together and ban conversion therapy if we fix the definition and address some of these technical details that are important and need to be addressed. At that point, we can all move forward together.

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

Madam Speaker, I cannot let another speech that grossly misrepresents Bill C-6 go by without commenting.

The speech by the hon. member does so in two ways. First, it equates conversations with practice, treatment or service. There is no reason for such an equation. There is no case in law that he could cite in which a conversation is treated as a practice, treatment or service.

The second way it misrepresents the definition in the bill is that it tries to create a division between someone's sexual orientation or gender identity and the way they live their lives: the way they behave. If the member would like to talk to clinicians, they can talk to him about how repression of sexual orientation and repression of gender identity have been fundamental parts of conversion therapy over time.

This really is a misrepresentation of the bill. I will not speculate on the member's motives.

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

Madam Speaker, although we are clearly not going to agree on this issue, I appreciate the opportunity to work with the member on other issues, including the situation in Tibet.

I would disagree with his interpretation of the legislation. He rightly points out that the legislation refers to a treatment, practice or service. In particular, it is the word “practice”, undefined previously in the Criminal Code, that raises significant questions. As was pointed out at committee by the Bloc member, the principle in law is that the legislature does not speak in vain. When we say a treatment, practice or service, we can imply that a practice is something that is not a treatment or a service, and “practice” is not defined.

To his comments about the distinction between identity and behaviour, I will simply say that there are cases in which a person might be advised, such as when a parent advises a teenager, about aspects of their sexual behaviour not in a way that denies their identity or tries to get them to change their identity, but that says there are certain aspects of the teenager's behaviour they should moderate in some way. I would submit that giving advice to a young person about some aspects of sexual behaviour is very different from telling someone fundamentally that their identity is wrong. These are two very different things, and a distinction has to be made.

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

Madam Speaker, I will ask the member another question regarding the definition. I remember watching some of the committee proceedings and hearing some experts say they were afraid that affirmation-only care for transgender youth would be promoted through this bill. I did some research and I know that transgender identification is rising very quickly. Some countries, such the U.K., are concerned about it. It has been noted in the U.K. that over a seven-year period, there has been a 4,000% increase in this identification. In fact, the U.K.'s minister for women and equalities is calling for a study of the root causes of this surge. She suspects the influence of social media and the teaching of transgender philosophy in the educational system may have something to do with it.

Why does this bill, in the definition, not address this rise? In fact it may create a chilling effect on counselling professionals who are trying to address this issue.

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

Madam Speaker, I hesitate to weigh in on some of the details the member has raised because they are ones that I cannot confirm. I am not doubting his sincerity. Some of the numbers and the situations he shared with regard to other countries are genuinely not things I am prepared to comment on, specifically in terms of their substance.

I will say that there is a difference between someone having an opinion that I might disagree with or find reprehensible, and saying that person should be prosecuted criminally for having that opinion. In the way the definition is phrased, with its lack of clarity around what constitutes a practice, the inclusion of any discussion of reducing sexual behaviour, which is a thing that people have conversations about, could become a question of a criminal response. We should ban conversion therapy, properly defined, and we can do that by fixing the definition.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

The hon. House Leader of the Official Opposition on a point of order.

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

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

Madam Speaker, it is good to have an opportunity to speak to Bill C-6. This is my first opportunity to speak to the bill. There has been a lot of conversation and I have listened intently to some of the debate.

I will say at the outset that in my riding I received a huge number of phone calls, emails and letters about the bill. Many people were very concerned. There have been petitions brought forward calling on the government to amend the definition in the bill.

Of all of the phone calls, emails and letters I received, 100% of the people in Sarnia—Lambton are opposed to forced conversion therapy. It is harmful: there is no debate about that, so the issues the people in my riding are raising have to do with the definition in the bill.

We know that the purpose of the bill is to ban conversion therapy, to make sure that children cannot be forced into conversion therapy, and to make sure that advertising or benefiting materially from conversion therapy is also banned. These are all good things. As I said, there is no dispute on the fact that everybody wants to ban conversion therapy.

The issue is the definition in the bill, which is overly broad. It would criminalize things that are not conversion therapy. The definition in Bill C-6 says that it is a “practice, treatment or service designed to change a person’s sexual orientation to heterosexual, to change a person’s gender identity or gender expression to cisgender or to repress or reduce non-heterosexual attraction or sexual behaviour.”

The concern coming forward from many people is about private conversations or preaching in the public square, or about counsel and discussions that people might have about people's sexuality or gender expression and issues such as these.

Many people are opposed to the definition that has been put forward. It is not just me here as a member of Parliament with a concern. Across the country, there are 12 million Catholics. The Catholic school boards across the country have come out against the definition in Bill C-6. Again, no one is saying that they do not want to ban conversion therapy, but they are concerned that this will infringe on their freedom of speech, on their freedom of religion and on their freedom to teach what they believe in their schools, and that they will end up going to jail for five years for exercising those very freedoms.

If we look at other people of faith in the country, we know that between evangelical Christians, Baptists, Muslims and the Jewish community, we are talking about another 12 million Canadians. All told, that is 24 million people and many groups have come out of them. Groups of lawyers, the Christian Legal Fellowship and the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs all have come out with concerns about the definition in the bill.

That is 24 million Canadians out of 38 million Canadians, so we are not talking about a minority or a small group of individuals. We are talking about a lot of people who want to have their rights under the charter protected. We need to look into what is it they are calling on the government to do.

They are calling on the government to ban coercive, degrading practices that are designed to change a person's sexual orientation or gender identity. I think we would all agree that we want to do that. They want to ensure that no laws discriminate against Canadians by limiting what services they can receive based on their sexual orientation or gender identity.

The point here is that there are individuals, even within the LGBTQ community, who want to be able to receive whatever type of counselling they want. They believe that is their freedom, so they are concerned. Similarly, people who want to have conversations about their sexual orientation, gender identity or gender expression feel like it is their freedom to be able to do that.

We heard from a lot of parents who were concerned. They wanted to speak with their children about sexuality and gender and set house rules, for example, about sex and about relationships. They did not want the far-reaching definition in Bill C-6 to criminalize their ability to be parents and to set rules and boundaries about what should go on in the household according to them.

We want to allow free and open conversations about sexuality and sexual behaviour and not criminalize professional and religious counselling voluntarily requested and consented to. People have the right to seek whatever help they want. One hundred per cent of the people in Sarnia—Lambton, me included, are opposed to forced conversion therapy.

The Liberals knew that there was a problem with the definition. When the noise started to happen from faith groups and legal professionals who said this would infringe on people's freedom of speech, they published a clarification on their web page. This is the clarification as published:

These new offences would not criminalize private conversations in which personal views on sexual orientation, sexual feelings or gender identity are expressed such as where teachers, school counsellors...doctors, mental health professionals, friends or family members provide affirming support to persons struggling with their sexual orientation, sexual feelings, or gender identity.

That is a great clarification. That is exactly what people were concerned about and exactly what they wanted to hear. Unfortunately, however, judges have to judge by what is in the law, not what is on the government's web page. Therefore, we did what anybody would do. We said that this was a great clarification, that it should be put in the bill. Then it would be clear that we were banning conversion therapy, but we would not be criminalizing things that were private conversations, that were voluntary counselling, that were pastoral duties, all these things.

The Conservatives proposed that be done, but the Liberals would not put the clarification into the bill. Why not? If they really do not want to criminalize things that are not conversion therapy, these kinds of private conversations, which is what they said on their web page, then why would they not put it in the bill? That is something for Canadians to consider.

The Liberals actually accepted some amendments at committee, so they cannot say that they were not going to accept any amendments. They accepted amendments to even expand this to gender expression, so that made the bill even more problematic from the point of view of private conversations, counselling and all the things about which I have been talking.

There are conversion therapy bans in other jurisdictions. We have heard about some of them during the debate. There are other provinces that have conversion therapy bans. The member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan talked about how his municipality had a ban. They have all used certain definitions. Quebec, Nova Scotia, P.E.I. and Yukon all have bans on conversion therapy and they have all used definitions, so that would be a good precedent to look at. The Netherlands, Norway, Germany, Israel and even Albania all have bans on conversion therapy. Therefore, it is worthwhile spending a few moments to talk about what definitions they used and what could we as Canadians learn from people who already implemented something and have not had issues.

Most of the people in the other provinces have used definitions from either the Canadian Psychological Association or the Canadian Psychiatric Association, recognizing that, in fact, it is not a bad thing to let the medical professionals, who understand what practices are acceptable and what practices are not, to define what conversion therapy is.

The Canadian Psychological Association says that, “Conversion therapy, or reparative therapy, refers to any formal therapeutic attempt to change the sexual orientation of bisexual, gay and lesbian individuals to heterosexual.”

The Canadian Psychiatric Association says that conversion therapy is, “a range of pseudo-scientific treatments that aim to change...sexual orientation from homosexual to heterosexual”.

Members can see the key words “formal therapeutic attempt” and “treatments that aim to change...sexual orientation” in these definitions. It is clear from this that they are not referring to conversations.

We know that in Israel, the definition is “any form of treatment or psychotherapy which aims to change a person's sexual orientation or to suppress a person's gender identity.” Again, it is a form of treatment or a form of psychotherapy.

In Germany's definition, it has to be shown that the individual “had not been deceived, coerced or threatened into taking part”, and I think that is important.

If we look at all the definitions I have presented, I think there are a lot of good options for the government to choose from. There are the ones that medical professionals have used, the ones that the provinces have used, and the ones that like-minded countries have used. All of these would be better than the definition that we have in the bill before us today.

Did I mention that 100% of the people who have spoken to me in Sarnia—Lambton are opposed to forced conversion therapy? I have to keep restating that because a lot of times when I am talking about the definition people think I am not against conversion therapy. No, 100%, everybody, including me and those I spoke to, is opposed to forced conversion therapy.

I will talk a little about my own experience and why I think it is clear that the Liberals and, in fact, the NDP want to criminalize things that are private conversations, things that people of faith are concerned about in this country.

When I was on the health committee, we studied LGBTQ health. Conversion therapy was one of the topics that came up during that discussion, and I shared some of my experiences. I was a youth leader for about 32 years in various churches, and over that time, I certainly had numerous conversations with young people about their sexuality. These are conversations that they initiated, and I do not think that anyone would be surprised about what a Baptist youth leader would say when they asked what I thought or what the Bible said about sexuality.

I mean, it is not a surprise. However, conversations were had, and I would say that of the individuals, some of them later came out gay, some of them came out straight, and the relationship with everybody was well established. We are still in contact, and the relationships are good, so there is not a problem. I talked about the benefit of being able to have those kinds of conversations for young people who are learning about their sexuality and trying to understand their feelings and bounce those ideas off of someone.

Do members know what the Liberal and NDP members said at health committee? They said that I should be in prison for having those conversations. I do not think I should be in prison. I really do not, but the fact that Liberal and NDP members thought I should be tells me that there is actually an intent on the part of some members opposite to actually criminalize things that are not conversion therapy. This is why I am very concerned and why I am asking to have the government change the definition.

I will share a story of one individual who came to me who was confused about his sexual orientation and had conversations with me when I was a youth leader. That individual has gone on to be a healthy member of the LGBTQ community, and he sees me regularly.

One day, he showed up at my house with a diamond ring. He had become a manager of jewellery store, and I do not know if he gets a discount or what, but he showed up with a diamond ring that he wanted to give me, along with a beautiful card thanking me for all of the mentorship that I had given to him over the years. He wanted me, every time I looked at the ring, to remember the positive impact that I had had on an individual.

I do not think those conversations are criminal conversations. I think they were helpful conversations. I do not think that anybody should be dictating to somebody what kinds of conversations they can have. I think that that is our freedom, that is something that is really important.

It has been apparent to me from Bill C-6, and even discussing these issues, that I have had a huge amount of harassment and a huge amount of hatred directed at me for questioning the definition in this bill. The same people who would put on a pink T-shirt for anti-bullying day, bullied me all day long on this issue. It is not always easy to stand up, but when I think about it, it is worth standing up for.

One of the reasons for that is because I have a good relationship with the LGBTQ community in my area. I attend their events. They invite me to their events. I go. I have been at the crosswalk reveal. I help their members the same way that I help all citizens. I have advocated for their issues, especially when we are working on LGBTQ health and making recommendations to the government about what we could do to help the community in areas like mental health where there are not adequate supports; things like supporting PrEP, which is paid for in some provinces and not in others; looking at all of the things that we can do and then standing up for members of the transgender community. My sister-in-law is transgender. There is a lack of support. These people are disproportionately targeted for violence. There is lots to be done there.

I am not coming to approach Bill C-6 from any position of being against any member of the community. I heard during the debate some members talk about how they wanted to uphold the LGBTQ rights over other rights. I do not want to be in a country where one group's rights are being taken away in order to give rights to another group.

I think we want to make sure we protect everybody's rights. I think we can do that in this bill. We have heard almost 100% agreement among members in the House that we want to ban forced conversion therapy. Other members and I have provided here today definitions that would be suitable, which would have unanimous support in this House. Again, there is this effort to not change the definition.

Twelve million people In Canada are Catholics. I want them to remember at election time that the Liberal government is trying to erode their freedom of speech and their freedom of religion. Their Catholic school boards are opposed to this and the government will not listen. If a person is a member of other faith communities like the Evangelical Fellowship, Baptists, Muslims and Jews, they are also having their rights eroded. I want them to remember that. There are 24 million of them in this country. If they all vote for their freedom of religion and freedom of speech, then the government will have to listen. That will be very important.

In the meantime, I have done a lot of thinking about this bill and whether it is worth the punishment of having all of the trolls out there not understanding that the issue with the bill is not about conversion therapy. Did I mention that 100% of the people who have spoken to me, and I, are opposed to forced conversion therapy? I hope I mentioned that.

There are men and women who fought for our country. In fact, yesterday was D-Day. People fought and died for our freedom of religion and our freedom of speech in this country. With that I am calling on the government to fix the definition in this bill. We want to criminalize conversion therapy but we do not want to criminalize other things. I hope that the government will recognize that it is not too late to uphold the rights and freedoms that people fought and died for.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

I thank the chief opposition House leader for his question of privilege. I wish to inform the Chair and the House that the New Democratic Party will be intervening on this question of privilege as well. We hope to make our contribution to this important question of privilege as soon as is feasible.

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

I thank the hon. member for the contribution.

The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands, questions and comments.

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

Madam Speaker, wow, just wow, talk about the separation of church and state meaning absolutely nothing to this member. I will have her know that I am one of those 12 million Catholics. I am not just identified as a Catholic; I am a practising Catholic. I can tell her there are many Catholics out there who are against conversion therapy in all forms, not just forced conversion therapy. I note that she used the term “forced conversion therapy” repeatedly throughout her speech. Yes, of course, who would not be against forced conversion therapy? That would literally be trying to hold somebody down against their will to force the demons out of them, as I indicated in the speech I gave earlier about the experiences of a constituent of mine.

However, that is not what this is about. When the member talks about forced conversion therapy, she should realize that the vast majority of conversion therapy is done through tricking people into believing they are not right. Very, very few people come to conversion therapy by being forced against their will. The vast majority are made to believe so they want to be part of it.

For the member to suggest that this bill does not give the right for families to have conversations is nothing more than a red herring. She has to come to terms with whether she will support this bill because it will protect and save Canadians lives, or whether she is going to get hung up, like so many other Conservatives, on this definition and these nuances of the definition—

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

I have to give the hon. member for Sarnia—Lambton an opportunity to answer.

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

Wow, Madam Speaker, just wow. I guess I would ask the member opposite what he thinks about the fact that Catholic school boards across the country are concerned and that many of their lawyers have looked at this bill, looked at this definition and are still concerned. There are a huge number of people who have an issue.

If I was not clear enough, 100% of people in my riding, myself included, are opposed to conversion therapy. I did not necessarily use the word “forced” all the time. I understand this is a damaging and harmful practice. This is about the definition, and the government needs to fix that.

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Madam Speaker, the debate seems to be venturing into the topic of religion.

I was born at the end of the 1970s. Since my parents had communist connections, I was not baptized. I wanted to make a little aside, but it may not be relevant to the debate. However, we are talking a lot about religious conscience and freedom of religion. We have also received a lot of emails from religious lobby groups.

How does my hon. think that right-wing and religious lobby groups influence the Conservative Party's position on Bill C-6, which we are debating today?

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

Madam Speaker, when it comes to people of faith, many of them have just emailed and phoned, and it is not an organized effort. There have been efforts, as I mentioned, with the Catholic school board, the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada, the CIJA organization and others, who have put their voices together. The point is not to do anything other than point out the number of Canadians, millions of Canadians, 24 million people of faith, and many of these people have concerns about the definition in this bill.

What is important is to get the definition right so we can all support this and ban conversion therapy, which is what everybody wants.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, there are young people who will be watching what is happening in the House of Commons. There will be young people who will be listening to the member talk about conversion therapy and her failure to support people as they go through conversion therapy. Does she worry about what the impact will be on children who hear parliamentarians talk about how they will not support a conversion therapy ban? Does she worry what the impacts will be?

All conversion therapy, regardless of how it is defined, is saying that something is wrong with one's identity. Every version says that something is wrong with one's identity. Is she comfortable telling young people there is something wrong with their identity? From my heart, I can say that there is nothing wrong with their identity.

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

Madam Speaker, I am not sure if the member did not hear my speech, but I said at least 10 times in it that 100% of the people in my riding, including myself, are opposed to conversion therapy. I would tell young people that this is a harmful practice and we definitely do not want it. On the other hand, I would tell young people that, as a person who has been a youth leader and helped a lot of people over the years, I want to be able to have those conversations and be there to help them through the hard times and their questions.

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

Madam Speaker, I have to say I was a little astounded at a question put to the member by the member for Kingston and the Islands when he said he was perturbed by the fact that she would be caught up in the nuances of the definition. Is that not precisely what we are dealing with, not conversion therapy in the abstract but a particular piece of legislation? Would my hon. colleague not agree that if we are going to pass a criminal law that imposes a penalty of up to five years behind bars, it had better be clear, it had better be targeted and it had better not be overly broad?

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

Madam Speaker, my colleague is right at the heart of the matter on this one. We know the Liberals knew there was a problem with the definition because they put a clarification on their web page that specifically said that it would not apply to private conversations, counselling, preaching, all of these different things, but they would not put that wording in the bill. Judges have to judge what is in the law and not what is on the government web page, so that is very telling, is it not?

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

Madam Speaker, I have had the opportunity to listen to a number of Conservatives talk about the legislation. To a certain degree, it is quite disappointing. When we look at the support for the legislation, in the chamber itself there are, not just the governing party, the Liberals, but the Bloc, the NDP and the Greens that recognize the true value of this legislation moving us forward, yet the Conservatives seem to be stuck on an issue within the definition, which the government and others have been very clear on, and for all intents and purposes, cannot be justified as a stalling tactic.

Can the member indicate to the House why she believes that all of the other political entities in the chamber seem to be supporting it, yet the Conservatives, with whatever wisdom, have based their decision strictly on the definition?

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

Madam Speaker, the reality is that I am good at math and I know this bill is going to pass, but, as I also pointed out, men and women have died for our freedom of speech. I firmly believe the definition is not going to protect private conversations, it is not going to protect counselling, it is not going to protect preaching in the public square. I fully expect there will be court challenges in the future. I am trying to prevent that by having an adult conversation about fixing the definition to be something that is in some of the many other pieces of legislation that exists provincially and in other countries. That is what the government ought to do.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Madam Speaker, it has been very interesting listening to this debate so far. I am happy for the opportunity to participate in this debate as well.

On December 3, Emmanuel Sanchez appeared before the justice committee to tell his story. He said, “I was around five years old the first time I noticed that I was attracted to the same sex.” As he grew older, he noticed the attraction more and more. He was bullied by the other boys at school. He was called crude names. As he sought an escape from the bullying, he found himself drawing near to the girls in a desire for safety and protection.

At times, these experiences, previous abuse and the hurtful words of others caused him considerable confusion. He told the committee he began to question his sexual orientation and gender identity. He hated himself. He hated being alive. He felt lonely and he did not feel safe confiding in anyone. He pursued a dark response to these feelings, but thankfully his suicide attempts failed.

As a teenager, Emmanuel began exploring gay culture. He wanted to understand his sexuality. He wanted to belong. At 16, he began to identify as gay and entered relationships with other men, but he feared rejection from family, friends and his faith community. While he knew that not everyone in his life agreed, he still described them as “very loving, caring and supportive of [him] as an individual.”

Despite Emmanuel's decision to embrace his truth, he described himself as “still very unsettled”. He made the choice to meet with a counsellor. She encouraged him to continue living the life he was living, yet week after week he still felt confusion and not peace. Feeling that he was not getting the support he needed, he made the choice to seek counselling from a pastor. This individual journeyed with him, neither affirming nor condemning decisions related to his sexual identity.

In time, he made a personal decision, his own choice, that he no longer wanted to continue this course that his life was on. He wanted to live his life in a way that was consistent with his faith and beliefs. Had it not been for the guidance and support that he freely sought out and received, he told the committee he did not think he would be breathing today and sharing his story.

This is not a story with a neat and tidy ending. Like every single one of us, Emmanuel is a unique and complex individual. He did not claim that counselling removed his same-sex attraction. He simply said it helped him determine the life he wanted to live.

Emmanuel asked the committee to do two things. He asked that parliamentarians acknowledge that people like him exist, and he asked that they create a well-written bill that truly bans coercive and abusive methods while respecting the individuals' freedom at any age to choose the type of support they want and their desired goal.

While we need multi-party co-operation to do the latter, I can at the very least recognize that Emmanuel and others like him exist. The problem with Bill C-6 is that it writes off people like Emmanuel. It suggests that the choices he has made and the support he has sought are wrong. It removes his agency and tells him that the government knows better than he does what kind of support he needs. Why? The definition of conversion therapy used in Bill C-6 is extremely broad. At present, it could not only capture instances where coercion or violence is present, but also capture something as simple as a good-faith conversation between a struggling teen and a trusted family member or professional.

Let me be very clear. If Emmanuel had described violent and coercive efforts that sought to change his sexuality against his will, this would be an entirely different situation. There is a reason government steps in to protect all of us from those who would cause such harm. It is wrong.

However, that is not what we are talking about. We are talking about a definition that could very well capture conversations. While many members want to pretend that no such problem exists, there were a myriad of witnesses appearing before the justice committee who had the same, or similar, concerns, individuals from the LGBT community, lawyers, medical professionals, clergy. Members might not agree with the view expressed, but when an issue is raised time and again by a diversity of voices, we should at least be paying attention.

Some witnesses warned of potential consequences should the bill not be amended.

Lawyer Daniel Santoro said:

The first problem is that the definition of conversion therapy is overly broad and imprecise. It's likely to capture situations that are not actual conversion therapy and cause confusion. The second problem is that the existing exception for medical treatment is too narrow, because it specifies only one lawful form of treatment: gender transition. The third and final problem is that the exception allowing exploration of identity is unclear and does not adequately protect charter freedoms.

Psychologist Dr. James Cantor said:

We will end up with clinicians...with a chill effect, simply unwilling to deal with this kind of issue; the service will become unavailable. Without a clear indication of what counts as an “exploration” and exactly what that means, anybody would have trouble going into this with the kind of confidence that a clinician needs in order to help their client.

I choose not to believe the Liberal government set out to restrict the choices available to Canadians based on their sexual orientation, but that is now exactly what will happen should this bill pass. It is not just these folks who will face limitations. Bill C-6 fails to affirm the right of parents to raise and educate their children in accordance with their beliefs. Whether we are talking about religious beliefs or a secular world view, the state has a duty to respect the values that parents choose to instill in their children.

This is not about allowing violent or coercive actions. The law should never protect those committing such acts against children, but the ambiguity created by this bill creates the fear that parents may not be able to set house rules about sex and relationships. In essence, parents of straight children would not be under the microscope, but parents with children questioning their sexual orientation or gender identity could feel as though journeying with their child through this period could result in criminal penalty. The fact the bill could restrict some parents from fully supporting their child and not others is an issue.

Family physician Dr. Jane Dobson told the justice committee:

My question is: Why is the government telling people what sexual or gender goals they should have? They are effectively doing this with Bill C-6, as the bill broadens the definition of conversion therapy from abusive and coercive therapeutic practices to also include talk therapy, watchful waiting, interpersonal conversations and spiritual practices, widening the net to now potentially criminalize parents, spiritual leaders and medical professionals for simply [raising] tested and tried therapy to help an individual reach their self-directed goals.

These are real concerns that many in this place have chosen to ignore in the name of political expediency. It is political expediency. We know this bill was reintroduced after the Liberal decision to prorogue Parliament. It was originally thought cleared from the agenda. The concerns I have mentioned were flagged to the government at that time, so when it later reintroduced Bill C-6, it could have been improved to ensure wide support, but it was not. The justice minister was fully aware of the changes he could have made to better this bill. He chose not to. It would have made sense indeed.

After the first introduction of the legislation, the Department of Justice put the following disclaimer on its website:

These new offences would not criminalise private conversations in which personal views on sexual orientation, sexual feelings or gender identity are expressed such as where teachers, school counsellors, pastoral counsellors, faith leaders, doctors, mental health professionals, friends or family members provide affirming support to persons struggling with their sexual orientation, sexual feelings, or gender identity.

Why did the department feel the need to clarify if the definition of conversion therapy in the bill is any good? If anything, the only clarity brought on by this clarification is that the bill is in need of much more work. The reality is that a disclaimer on the department's website is not the same as legislation. That is why Conservatives sought to find common ground by proposing reasonable amendments that would bring real clarity to the legislation. These amendments were focused to ensure that voluntary conversations between individuals and their teachers, school counsellors, pastoral counsellors, faith leaders, doctors, mental health professionals, friends or family members would not be criminalized.

Finding a balance between protecting individuals from violence, abuse or coercion while maintaining free and open conversation is a balance I think most Canadians would appreciate. Unfortunately, despite the clear indication the Liberals are aware of the bill's ambiguity, they refuse to support these amendments. In free societies, governments must leave space for individual citizens to make decisions about their lives. This includes the space to seek counsel on personal matters, such as one's sexuality.

Canadians can expect their government to respect the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, including the freedoms of conscience, religion, thought, belief, opinion and expression. Like Emmanuel, those with deeply held convictions, who may want to seek advice and support on questions of sexuality, deserve the right to do that. No one should be able to be told by the government that seeking guidance, asking questions or helping to reconcile faith and sexual attraction is off limits to them.

I stated earlier that Emmanuel had asked parliamentarians to do two things, which were to acknowledge the people who can exist and to create a well-written bill that protects from violence while respecting the rights of individuals to receive their chosen support. Unfortunately, I find that Bill C-6 fails on both points, and as long as it fails Canadians like Emmanuel, I will not support the bill.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, I have been thinking about something all day. If I have a drug or alcohol problem, it is considered a pathology and I have the right to seek treatment. My Conservative colleagues are making it sound as though they see sexual orientation as a pathology.

I would like to hear it from my colleague's mouth. Does he consider any sexual orientation other than heterosexuality to be a pathology?

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Madam Speaker, the member's question is a good one. The problem with Bill C-6 is that the definition is so cloudy, poor and overly broad that one cannot clearly define what would be acceptable as far as having conversations, or asking for counselling or asking for help from a spiritual leader or a pastor. That makes the bill very ambiguous and it would capture instances of conversations and counselling that I do not think it intended to do.

As I said earlier, the Department of Justice on its website tried to provide clarification as to the definition. It should not have to do that if the bill were clear. At the end of the day, the legal system will look at what is in the bill, not what is printed on the department's website.

[Scott Duvall, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Madam Speaker, my colleague's leader has unequivocally stated, “Conversion therapy is wrong. In my view it should be banned.” He said, “I want everyone to feel accepted in our society.” He further said, “To be forced to change who you are is not okay” and “if that is the intent of this bill” it needed to be clarified.

It is good to hear that the leader of the Conservative Party believes conversion therapy is wrong, but if the Conservatives will not support him and this bill, then what? What happens?

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Madam Speaker, perhaps I did not say it from the outset, but I, like all my Conservative colleagues and I believe everyone in the House, feels that conversion therapy that would be violent, degrading, abusive and coercive should be banned. That is what we have been consistently saying, whether it is my leader, the hon. member for Durham, or anyone else in the Conservative caucus or at committee. We are opposed to violent, coercive, unwanted therapies of any kind. However, that is not what the bill clearly identifies. The bill actually muddies those waters by not providing that clear definition of what conversion therapy is or what is meant by conversion therapy.

As Conservatives, we have asked at committee to please let us put forward amendments that would bring clarity to the bill, something we could all get behind. As I said, we do support conversion therapy, but we 100% support a person's desire and ability to retain counsel and to have good faith conversations, whether it is with youth leaders, as the previous speaker mentioned, or with friends and pastors or professional counsellors. We need to protect that right for all Canadians.

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

Madam Speaker, there they go again. We are all against violent conversion therapy. Violent conversion therapy? Is violence not already illegal? We cannot inflict violence upon somebody without it already not being illegal.

This is just more of the same rhetoric that we heard from the previous member, going on and on, making it seem as though they really care about this issue. All they are doing, and Canadians see right through it, is looking for justification not to vote in favour of this when the reality is that they are against conversion therapy.

Why does the member just say that he is against conversion therapy? He would be a lot more honourable doing that.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Madam Speaker, the member for Kingston and the Islands is getting a little worked up. As I have said all along, the Conservatives and all members of the House know exactly what conversion therapy is and we are opposed to it. What we are not opposed to is parents having a conversation about sex and relationships, about pastors, youth leaders, professional counsellor or medical people having conversations about sexuality. For whatever reason, the member does not understand that. I do not get it. Why does he not understand—

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

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Peace River—Westlock.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-6, which proposes a ban on conversion therapy. I want to say at the outset that I too am opposed to conversion therapy.

Coercive and degrading practices should be banned, and I think my colleagues in the House would agree with me on that. We would not find anybody in this place who is supportive of conversion therapy. However, this bill proposes to criminalize much more than coercive and degrading practices, and we need to protect people from being victimized.

I have spoken and consulted with, and received feedback from, many of my constituents and Canadians from across the country regarding this bill. In a recent mailer, I polled my constituents, and the vast majority of them were not happy with Bill C-6. They are opposed to conversion therapy; however, many are concerned about the definition given in the bill. They fear that it is overly broad and that many conversations would be criminalized.

The voices of the people of Peace River—Westlock echo those of many Canadians who are concerned that this bill might and will criminalize certain types of voluntary counselling and conversation. There are concerns that this overly broad definition of conversion therapy will criminalize different supports, and that this will hurt the people we are trying to protect.

The bill seeks to ban counselling that is related to managing sexual behaviour. My colleague from Cypress Hills—Grasslands described that nowhere else in the world has the same definition of conversion therapy that is presented in this particular bill, which would ban counselling for sexual behaviour. No individual should be prevented from getting the mental or behavioural supports they want.

A Nanos poll conducted earlier this year found that 91% of Canadians support the right of Canadians to get counselling of their choice, regardless of their sexual orientation. Canadians are concerned about the lack of clarity and the broad scope of the bill regarding what constitutes conversion therapy, and this has led them to petition the government to fix the definition.

As a member of Parliament, I have tabled many petitions in the House on this very topic to raise their concerns about the legislation. Some of their concerns include that pastors and religious educators might be thrown in jail for teaching or holding traditional views on sexuality. There are also concerns that this bill would restrict the choices and freedoms of the LGBT community by limiting their access to professional services based on their orientation or gender identity.

As legislators, it is of utmost importance that our bills and definitions are clear. We should not write bills that are imprecise or overbroad and that would be quick to lead to court challenges. I note that the Bloc member who sits on the committee repeatedly brought this point up. He said that we should get this definition right, and I commend him for his work on the committee.

When most people talk about conversion therapy, they think of coercive, harmful, degrading practices such as electroshock therapy, chemical castration and forced lobotomies, among others. These horrific practices should, and have been in many cases, banned. However, this bill would very well criminalize counselling and conversations that are freely sought if they seek to limit or change a person's behaviour, orientation or expression.

The bill before us was first tabled as Bill C-8, but as a result of the prorogation of Parliament, it was reintroduced as Bill C-6. For Bill C-8, there were concerns that the definition of conversion therapy was overly broad, and because of the prorogation there was time for the justice minister to offer greater clarity and a precise definition. However, the bill was retabled without the definition being fixed, and after being introduced and having a short amount of time in debate at second reading, Bill C-6 went to committee.

Many members of this chamber voted to send the bill to committee so that the definition could be amended and given more precision. In its meetings, the committee heard from many witnesses and made some amendments to the bill, but it did not fix the definition. Furthermore, gender expression was included.

There are indeed concerns that people have expressed with the bill before us, including many Canadians who want to maintain the freedom and ability to make their own choices.

We heard recently from my colleague for Provencher about Emmanuel who had shared his story about how he was engaged in a lifestyle where he was bullied and shamed by his school peers, because he was gay. Because of this, he hated himself and even tried to kill himself. After his failed suicide attempt, Emmanuel decided to embrace his identity. Throughout this, Emmanuel's family supported and loved him, and because his Christian faith was a big part of his life, he sought counselling in this area. While he found a diversity of approaches, he finally found a counsellor who became a real mentor for him. Emmanuel said that the mentor counselled him in ways he wanted to be challenged, and he credits his counselling for being alive today.

Now, Emmanuel is clear that he is firmly opposed conversion therapy and supports laws to prevent it, but he is also clear that anyone seeking answers on their sexuality should be free to choose the support that they want. He is concerned that the current definition, unless fixed, would prevent this. In the justice committee he said that:

I stand with you in your efforts to see LGBTQ+ individuals protected and loved. Therefore, I ask that you create a well-written bill that truly bans coercive and abusive methods while respecting the individual's freedom at any age to choose the type of support they want and their desired goal. I trust you will make a decision that will benefit and protect the citizens of Canada while upholding fundamental rights and freedoms.

With the passing of Bill C-6, there are many fears that religious counselling would be banned. Many different faith traditions have teachings about human sexuality. Several teach that there is a difference between behaviour and orientation and that they are not the same thing. There is a variety of reasons why someone might not want to act in a particular way, including their personal faith tradition or just not wanting to do something. If a religious leader offers counselling, sharing their experience or a teaching on sexuality, there is a fear that Bill C-6 would criminalize that conversation.

Canadians may have a variety of reasons of why they might want to reduce a particular behaviour, which may be unwanted or undesired. I know people who have porn addictions, and reducing their sexual behaviour is something that they desperately want to do. It is important that we do not remove or eliminate the tools and resources that enable people to be able to seek the support that they want—

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

I have to interrupt the hon. member. He will have about one minute and 20 seconds to finish his speech when the bill next comes up for debate.

The House resumed from June 7 consideration of the motion that Bill C-6, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (conversion therapy), be read the third time and passed.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Peace River—Westlock has one and a half minutes remaining in the debate.

The hon. member.

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

Madam Speaker, as I resume my speech from over a week ago, I want to echo the concerns that many people have brought forward about Bill C-6 and its definition of conversion therapy. Canadians from across the country have expressed concern and asked parliamentarians to fix the definition as they are concerned about private conversations and freely chosen, voluntary counselling being criminalized.

Looking back at the committee that studied this bill, there were concerns expressed by several witnesses along these lines, with members of multiple parties endorsing that position as well. The member for the Bloc at the justice committee, the member for Rivière-du-Nord, expressed concerns about the impacts of the legislation. Along with the testimony from witnesses, many briefs were submitted to the committee. Almost 300 individuals and groups wrote briefs, which means that Canadians were interested in and concerned about this bill. The justice committee did not even take the necessary time to have the briefs translated or reviewed before it voted and adopted this bill. Why did the committee members not take the time to read over these briefs? Many Canadians are wondering.

Fixing the definition is what Canadians are asking for. The Liberal government has failed Canadians by coming up with a definition that does not have unanimous support in this place. Conservatives are opposed to conversion therapy and are looking forward to a bill that would ban conversion therapy and not conversations.

[Lianne Rood, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

Madam Speaker, I have received hundreds of emails and letters from constituents who are very concerned that their parental rights will be taken away from them, or their pastoral right to counsel their children or people who might be seeking their advice on this particular issue.

Can the member comment on this?

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

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for her hard work in this place.

I agree with her. I have heard from Canadians from across the country who are concerned about the definition of conversion therapy, particularly around the word “practice”. The word “practice” is not clearly defined in Canadian law, so what is a practice that would be covered by this law? This law would be banning a treatment, service or practice, and that is fundamentally what folks are concerned about. What is the definition of a practice? Is it just a conversation that people are having? Is it a prayer that is being prayed for somebody? There are many things. “Religious practice” is a term that we use often in the religious world. Would a religious practice therefore be considered conversion therapy? That is what folks are concerned about.

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

Madam Speaker, many people following the debate see the Conservatives using the issue of a definition as a bit of a scapegoat to justify their behaviour on the legislation itself. The concerns have been addressed. Members from all parties except the Conservative Party seem to recognize that.

Can the member clearly indicate what his personal position is on conversion therapy? Does he support it, or does he not? I ask that he stay away, as much as possible, from this whole definition, which many Canadians see as the Conservative Party members using an excuse to justify their vote.

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

Madam Speaker, the Conservative Party has been extremely clear, and I have been as well, that we are opposed to conversion therapy. We are opposed to what people think of as conversion therapy.

“[P]ractice, treatment or service” is not a clearly defined definition of conversion therapy. Particularly, counselling that changes behaviour is a concerning part of the definition. A lot of counselling is attempting to change behaviour, and that is exactly what I have been hearing from folks around the country.

Over 300 briefs were written to the justice committee on this and they were ignored. The government members ignored those briefs. They did not listen to those briefs. They did not take the time to have them translated. They ran this bill through with a bad definition. Not only Conservatives on the committee said that, but Bloc members said it as well.

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

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to hear my colleague say that we are opposed to requiring conversion therapy without the individual's consent. That is exactly what Bill C-6 is about. I invite my colleague to watch Boy Erased to understand this important nuance. This is reassuring, and I think we will soon be ready to vote.

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

Madam Speaker, we are trying to ban degrading and harmful practices when we say we want to ban conversion therapy. The bill would not do that. Therefore, I will be voting against it, as I did at second reading. We want a bill that bans conversion therapy, not this definition of it.

Many people asked for amendments to bring clarity to the bill. Once again, I will reference the over 300 briefs that the justice committee ignored when it rammed the bill through. These proposals included defining conversion therapy as a practice, treatment or service. We could put in greater precision and protections so that people can get the counselling they want, private conversations and discussions can happen and parents can set house rules for sexuality that happens in their own home.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Madam Speaker, it is a privilege to rise on this issue. I understand that the opinions to counter this bill are not as numerous as the opinions in favour of it, but they are nonetheless no less important.

When I was watching the debate ensue at committee, I was not a part of the committee, but as an interested parliamentarian, I watched all of it. The debate with respect to witnesses and so forth was rather even-handed. I did not count the number of witnesses who raised concerns, versus those who were in favour of it, but there were plenty of professionals and other individual people who brought up real situations which would be technically against the letter of the law according to this, but I think we would all agree are legitimate concerns. I just want to, as best as I can, address those today. Ten minutes is not sufficient for that, but I will do my very best. Of course, time is lacking to do much of what we need to do in this House.

I am in support of a ban on harmful counselling. There are many other jurisdictions, governments and cities around the world that have banned conversion therapy, but in a different way. They have different definitions that are far less broad. Of course, many of them, if not all, outside of a few, are not criminal in nature. I think it is problematic when we have a very broad definition that is also criminal because we want to ban harmful courses of practice, but we do not want to put people in jail who, frankly, do not deserve to be there.

As others have raised before, we want to be entirely certain that what we are targeting is, in fact, the evil that we are looking to target and not be overbroad in that ban. I am a little bit concerned that the assumptions that underpin this bill are faulty. When not all, but some of the assumptions are faulty we can be led astray. I just want to take issue with some of them.

The first is the myth that Bill C-6's definition of conversion therapy accurately identifies treatments that will be harmful and does so in a way that is not overbroad. I think, of course, that there are abusive practices out there and I think that we should aim to ban them, but what Bill C-6 has done here is to basically, in my view, when looking at the definition, outlaw any validated form of talk therapy for Canadians wishing to deal with various issues related to sexual attraction and gender identity. For those who would like to look into the proceedings of the committee, there are many examples of very credible witnesses who have gone through circumstances where they needed counselling to address certain things and their stories are credible. I do not have time to go through them all, but members can look at them.

I also want to say that with respect to transgender identification, particularly in children, there is a conversation going on globally right now that we are missing in this debate on Bill C-6.

In the U.K., the Government Equalities Office for example, is looking into whether the influence of social media and the discussion of gender identity with young people have contributed to the striking increase in referrals. When I get into some of the data here on the striking increase, I think we could all agree that there is something here that needs to be looked at. In the last 10 years, in the United Kingdom, which mirrors data from other countries, we have seen referrals to these gender clinics skyrocket. We have seen them increase by about 1,000% for boys and 4,400% for biological females.

These exponential rises, as I have said, are increasing in other western nations as well. We heard one of the members earlier speak about the United Kingdom High Court ruling with respect to Keira Bell. Keira Bell is one of the young women who was referred to the Tavistock institute, which is the clinic there that deals with gender referrals for gender identity. She was told that, if she went through the process, she would feel better about herself, so she went on to hormone blockers. She had a double mastectomy. She spent several years living, outwardly looking like a man, and she came to regret it. She was in her early twenties. She took the Tavistock institute to court saying she was not in a position where she could consent to this treatment, but was basically told that this would be the answer she needed to her life. It did not make anything better and, in fact, it made a lot of things worse.

The court ruled that people under 16 could likely not consent to puberty-blocking treatments. This bill does the opposite. This bill says that if someone wants to put their child on hormone blockers or if they want to basically put them on the road to surgery, that is totally fine, but to give them the wrong type of counselling could get them in trouble.

Some people would say that there is a clause in the bill that allows people to explore. However, the fact is we heard from very competent professionals in committee that this clause would not be enough, when there is potentially a five-year jail term hanging over people's head.

We heard from Ken Zucker, an internationally renowned expert in gender identity. He was basically working with our clinic here, CAMH, for decades. He is internationally renowned in this field. He has literally written the book on how to treat gender identity in children. He was accused of conversion therapy a few years ago. He was fired from his position, summarily. He had the wherewithal and the resources to take his employer to court. He won a substantial settlement. He cleared his name.

This is the type of thing that we are seeing, before Bill C-6. If this is the sort of witch hunt environment we are seeing before Bill C-6, it is going to increase significantly with Bill C-6.

Other than the U.K., we are seeing other countries in Europe, Sweden and Finland, have gone even a step further. They are moving away from what is called affirmation-only models of care, which I suggest is what Bill C-6 is, this is what other professionals in committee said about this bill. In Sweden and Finland, they are saying there must be a sober second look when a child identifies as transgender. A sober second look is the very thing that I believe Bill would criminalize.

Bill C-6 would criminalize parents who want to discourage their young child from transitioning, who would not be making life-altering decisions. I do not believe it is hateful for a parent to make a decision based on accurate medical facts.

When it comes to transgender identification in children, reliable data indicates the vast majority of kids who identify as another gender would grow out of it, meaning by the time they become an adult, many of them, up to 80% according to some studies, will identify or accept the body they were born with. I think that given data like that, we really need to give a lot of room here for kids to explore but not to push them on this one-track mode of puberty blockers and eventually surgery. This is what is being criticized by people like Keira Bell.

I read an article in the National Post a year or so ago by Barbara Kay that highlighted the story of a young girl, JB is the acronym used, a child who is currently involved in an application in the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal. This involves a teacher in an Ottawa area school who told this six year-old that girls do not exist. This six-year-old was a happy, loving young girl. I have a seven-year-old, a six-year-old and a five-year-old. The seven- and five-year-olds are girls.

This six-year-old became distraught, withdrawn and depressed. She did not understand what it meant. The parents asked the teacher if she could just cool it on some of these ethereal gender theory comments. The teacher and administration refused to do this, and the parents had to take that girl out of that school. They moved her to a different school, and have taken this particular school board to court.

The girl is once again a happy, well-adjusted young girl. It just goes to show that we have to be careful what we are putting into the minds of our young children. What the U.K. high court case found is that once these kids are put onto these drugs, the hormone blockers, it pretty much puts them on the road to surgery. It is kind of like a one-track street.

We need to be very careful. We need to have a sober second look in this country.

There are in fact many people, even in LGB communities, who are against this bill. I will read an email I received. It said:

Dear Mr. Derek Sloan,

As a Lesbian, I am asking you to investigate the use of gender identity in bill C-6. Approximately 75% of trans identifying youth will grow up to be gay or lesbian, if not affirmed and medically transitioned. This bill, as written, ensures that these gay and lesbian youth will be medically transitioned into straight adults.

She goes on to say:

Please protect vulnerable gay and lesbian youth from being told that they are“born in the wrong body” and told they should transition to feel “right” and to “fit in”. Sincerely...

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

Unfortunately, the hon. member's time is up. I am sure that during questions and comments, he will have a chance to respond.

Questions and comments. The hon. member for Peace River—Westlock.

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

Madam Speaker, one of the things that was notable in the committee was the 300 briefs that were just ignored. I was wondering if the member has any comments about that.

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

Madam Speaker, I noted that as well. I also noted some members of the other parties, I believe a member from the Bloc Québécois, also said that we should spend a little time on them, even just out of respect for the people who submitted these briefs.

The member is right, and I think there were about 300 or so that came in. They came in at the last minute and there was not enough time to have them translated, so the committee finished its work on this bill without even looking at those briefs. That is problematic. It shows there was a lot of interest in this bill, and we owe it to Canadians to have spent the time to look at it.

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

Madam Speaker, this is interesting to hear because the personal and emotional testimonies I shared in my speech were all of young people who had transitioned in their teens and then realized in their early twenties that gender transition was not a permanent solution to their gender dysphoria, and they were in their own process of detransition.

Clearly there is a concern here, as has been mentioned. I am wondering if he would expand further on how Bill C-6, as currently written, could very well restrict the freedom of the respectful and exploratory speech of these individuals with valuable lived experience.

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

Madam Speaker, one thing that struck me about the debate on this bill, and of course this was not reflected in committee, although I think in committee there was a balanced discussion on many of the issues, was that right now there is a conversation going on around the world with respect to transgender identification in children. I heard some members talk about the fact that a small percentage of the people who transition have regrets.

We are on the tipping point of a big iceberg of regret, because back 10 years or 20 years ago, the funnel for who experienced surgery with respect to transgender changes was a lot narrower. We are seeing, as I said earlier, this meteoric rise in identification. We are seeing an increase of 1,000% for men and 4,400% for young girls. We are seeing a U.K. government office do research into why we are seeing this, so I think the tip of the iceberg of regret is just on the horizon.

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

Madam Speaker, this member is in a neighbouring riding of mine. Certainly he has heard of the experiences at the Third Day Worship Centre in Kingston and what the experiences were of a number of members in that congregation. He will also probably know that the City of Kingston passed a bylaw banning conversion therapy. It is enforceable by a fine and is not a criminal offence because, obviously, it cannot do that, but it is taking measures.

He talked about what other jurisdictions were doing. Does he agree that was the right thing for the City of Kingston council to do?

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

Madam Speaker, that question brings up the issue of what exactly our definition covers. With respect to that particular situation, I have personally spoken to the man who underwent what happened in Kingston. I am not aware of the other cases, but I am talking about the main person who was testifying at city council.

With his particular situation, he was basically prayed over in a very public manner and advised to take a three-day fast. These are things none of us would maybe agree to or advise, but when we take a look at what happened to this person, do we believe the religious leaders of this church should go to jail for five years? They prayed over an 18-year-old who was requesting prayer at the time. Now, apparently they embarrassed him, and of course I do not agree with that, but is it worth a five-year jail sentence?

These are the questions we need to answer. When I was speaking to the minister earlier in this session, I said that the Canadian Psychological Association has prayer in its definition and asked if this would ban prayer. I was told it would not.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

The question is on the motion.

If a member of a recognized party present in the House wishes to request a recorded division or that the motion be adopted on division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands.

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

Madam Speaker, I would request a recorded division.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

Pursuant to order made on Monday, January 25, the recorded division stands deferred until Tuesday, June 22 at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.

The House resumed from June 21 consideration of the motion that Bill C-6, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (conversion therapy), be read the third time and passed.

[The Speaker, Anthony Rota]

It being 3:17 p.m., pursuant to the order made on Monday, January 25, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at third reading stage of Bill C-6.

Call in the members.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #175

[The Speaker, Anthony Rota]

I declare the motion carried.

(Bill read the third time and passed)