Bill C-6 (Historical)

An Act to amend the Criminal Code (conversion therapy)

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

Criminal Code

[David Lametti, Liberal, Minister of Justice]

moved that Bill C-6, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (conversion therapy), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to commence second reading debate on Bill C-6, which proposes to criminalize conduct related to conversion therapy, a cruel exercise that stigmatizes and discriminates against Canada's lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer and two-spirit communities.

Bill C-6 is identical to former Bill C-8, which I introduced on March 9, 2020. Bill C-6 and former Bill C-8 signal our government's continuing commitment to eradicating a discriminatory practice that is out of step with Canadian values.

Our government is committed to protecting the human dignity and equality of members of the LGBTQ2 community by ending conversion therapy in Canada.

The bill delivers on that commitment and complements other measures, including former Bill C-16, which provides increased protection for transgender Canadians in the Criminal Code and the Canadian Human Rights Act.

I am pleased to present another initiative that will further protect LGBTQ2 people from discriminatory practices.

So-called conversion 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. Conversion therapy can take many forms, including counselling, behavioural modification and talk therapy, and may be offered by professionals, religious officials or laypersons.

This practice is a manifestation of the myths and stereotypes surrounding LGBTQ2 individuals. More specifically, it suggests that sexual orientation other than heterosexual and gender identity other than those genders can and must be corrected. This type of discriminatory message stigmatizes LGBTQ2 individuals and violates their dignity and their right to equality.

Conversion therapy has also been discredited and denounced by many professional associations as harmful, especially to children. For example, in its 2014 position paper on mental health care for people who identify as LGBTQ2, the Canadian Psychiatric Association stated that it opposes the use of conversion therapy given that the practice is based on the assumption that LGBTQ2 identities indicate a mental disorder and that LGBTQ2 people could or should change their sexual orientation or gender identity. The Canadian Paediatric Society has identified the practice as “clearly unethical”, and the Canadian Psychological Association, in its policy statement on conversion therapy, opposes the practice and takes note of the fact that “Scientific research does not support [its] efficacy”.

The position of these professional associations and of many other Canadian and international associations reflects the scientific evidence that people subjected to this practice must deal with its negative effects such as anxiety, self-hate, depression, suicidal ideation and attempted suicide.

Studies indicate that children are particularly susceptible to these negative effects. For example, research shows that negative mental health outcomes among youth who have been exposed to conversion therapy include, in addition to the negative impacts I have already mentioned, high levels of depression, lower life satisfaction, less social support and lower socio-economic status in young adulthood.

What do we know about conversion therapy in Canada?

Thanks to the community-based Sex Now survey, we have a better picture of who is most affected by conversion therapy. The survey's most recent results, from 2019-20, indicate that as many as 20%, or one in five, of respondents had been exposed to the practice, so we know that this harmful practice is currently happening in Canada. Moreover, a recent Canadian Journal of Psychiatry article that interpreted the Sex Now survey's previous results indicates that transgender, indigenous, racial minority and low-income persons are disproportionately represented among those who have been exposed. It also notes that transgender overrepresentation “may be explained by the ‘double stigma’ experienced by those who simultaneously occupy sexual minority and gender minority social positions.”

This data is significant cause for concern. Not only does conversion therapy negatively affect marginalized persons, but it negatively affects the most marginalized within that group.

Given the inherent cruelty of conversion therapy and the evidence of its effects, which are not only harmful but also discriminatory for the most marginalized, Bill C-6 proposes amendments to put an end to this practice.

First, the bill would define conversion therapy, for the purposes of the Criminal Code, 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 purpose, that is, changing a fundamental part of who a person is. Accordingly, practices, treatments or services designed to achieve other purposes would not be captured by the definition, such as treatments to assist a person in realizing their choice to align their physical appearance and characteristics with their gender identity, and therapies that assist a person in exploring their identity, known as gender-affirming treatments.

However, out of an abundance of caution, the bill contains a “for greater certainty” clause, which clarifies that the definition would not capture certain practices, services or treatments, specifically those that relate

(a) to a person’s gender transition; or

(b) to a person’s exploration of their identity or to its development.

This clause comprehensively responds to any concern that the definition could be misinterpreted to include legitimate gender-affirming practices that help people explore their identities or realize their choice to gender transition. It is also consistent with the 2009 report of the American Psychological Association's Task Force on Appropriate Therapeutic Responses to Sexual Orientation, which describes affirmative therapeutic interventions for those experiencing distress, for example, because of same-sex sexual attraction. Specifically, the report notes that legitimate interventions involve exploring and countering the harmful impact of stigma and stereotypes on the person's self-concept and maintaining a broad view of acceptable choices. To be clear, legitimate gender-affirming interventions do not share the same purpose as treatments that are designed to change or suppress who a person is.

Consequently, the offences proposed by Bill C-6 do not apply to recognized therapies, first, because the main objective of gender affirming treatments is not to change a person's sexual orientation to heterosexual or to restrict their gender identity to cisgender only, or to repress or reduce attraction or sexual behaviour. In case this is still not clear, the proposed legislative measures specific to these types of practices are not included in the definition of “conversion therapy”.

Since this seems to be very important to the Leader of the Opposition, I want to explicitly reassure him. This bill does not prohibit conversations about sexuality between an individual and their parents, family members, spiritual leaders or anyone else. The legislative measure we are debating today does not prohibit these conversations, but criminalizes an odious practice that has no place in our country.

Building on its clear definition of conversion therapy, the bill would also create five new Criminal Code offences to criminalize causing minors to undergo conversion therapy, removing minors from Canada to undergo conversion therapy abroad, causing a person to undergo conversion therapy against their will, profiting or receiving a material benefit from the provision of conversion therapy and advertising an offer to provide conversion therapy.

This approach will protect all minors who are disproportionately affected by conversion therapy, whether it be provided in Canada or elsewhere. No one would be able to provide conversion therapy to minors, and no one would be authorized to take a person who is ordinarily resident in Canada abroad to receive conversion therapy.

The approach would also protect persons who are at risk of being forced to receive conversion therapy. No one would be allowed to cause another person to undergo conversion therapy.

The approach would also protect all Canadians from the commercialization of conversion therapy. No one would be allowed to profit from the practice, regardless of whether it is provided to minors or adults.

Finally, the approach would protect all Canadians from public messaging suggesting that a person's sexual orientation or gender identity can and should be changed. No one would be allowed to advertise conversion therapy, regardless of whether a fee is charged for it. Courts would also be authorized to order the seizure and forfeiture of conversion therapy advertisements or their removal from the Internet, which is similar to existing powers with respect to hate propaganda.

I cannot emphasize enough that telling someone they cannot be who they are is wrong and needs to be condemned in the strongest possible terms. The balanced approach in this legislation factors in the interests of every implicated person.

To be clear, the bill's main purpose is to protect the equality rights of marginalized people in Canadian society, but we know that conversion therapy not only causes individual harms to those subjected to it, but also causes harm to all of society by sending the message that a fundamental part of who a person is, their sexual orientation or gender identity, is a transitory state that can and should be changed. Such messaging is anathema to Canadian values, as reflected in our charter, which protects the equality rights of all Canadians, including LGBTQ2 people. Respecting equality means promoting a society in which everyone is recognized at law as equally deserving of respect and consideration. This starts with promoting a society in which everyone can feel safe to be who they are. The law must provide the same protection for LGBTQ2 people as it does for others.

To promote these values, we need legislation to discourage and denounce a practice that hurts LGBTQ2 people and perpetuates the myths and stereotypes surrounding LGBTQ2 people.

As stated in the preamble of the bill, it is our duty to discourage and denounce the provision of conversion therapy, in light of all of the social and individual harms it causes. It is our duty to protect the human dignity and equality of all Canadians. That is precisely what we are doing with Bill C-6.

We recognize the proposed amendments limit certain choices, including, for example, for mature minors. We made this policy decision because research shows us that all minors, regardless of their age, are particularly vulnerable to conversion therapy's harms. Moreover, if mature minors were allowed to consent to receive conversion therapy, it would be the providers who would have to determine whether the child is mature enough to consent, but most so-called conversion therapy providers are not medical professionals and are not in a position to assess whether a minor is truly capable of making their own treatment decisions. That is why we have drawn a hard line at 18 years of age. That is the best way to protect the most vulnerable among those who are at risk of being subjected to this abhorrent practice.

We also recognize that criminalizing profiting from conversion therapy means that consenting adults would be prevented from accessing conversion therapy unless it is available free of charge. That is because deterring this harmful practice requires placing limits on its availability, and these limits assist in avoiding psychological harm to the individuals who may be subjected to it, as well as harm to the dignity and equality rights of a marginalized group.

Criminalizing advertising conversion therapy furthers that same important objective and reduces the presence of discriminatory public messaging.

Significantly, nothing in the bill limits a person's right to his or her 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 and counsellors, family members, friends or religious officials seeking to support that individual. Ensuring everyone's ability to express his or her point of view is fundamental to a free and democratic society, and this is true regardless of whether there is agreement on that point of view.

Now that I have described the proposed amendments and what they will and will not prevent, I would like to commend former Senator Joyal for his work on this issue. He introduced former Senate public bill, Bill S-202, an act to amend the Criminal Code regarding conversion therapy, which was taken over by Senator Cormier after Senator Joyal retired. This bill had previously been known as Bill S-260.

The proposed offences in the legislation fill a gap in the criminal law because we currently have no offence directly targeting the heinous practice of conversion therapy. Together with existing offences, the new offences would create a comprehensive criminal law response to the harms posed by conversion therapy.

Let us not forget that criminal law responses would complement existing provincial and municipal responses as well. Three provinces, Ontario in 2015, Nova Scotia in 2018 and Prince Edward Island in 2019, have enacted legislation under their responsibility for health-related matters. This legislation specifies that conversion therapy is not an insured health service and bans health care providers from providing conversion therapy to minors.

Significantly, other Canadian jurisdictions are following suit. Earlier this year, both the Yukon and Quebec introduced bills that would implement similar reforms. Although Bill C-6 is an exercise of criminal law because it would amend the Criminal Code, it is consistent with provincial health regulation.

Some Canadian municipalities, such as Vancouver, Calgary and Edmonton, have also prohibited companies from providing conversion therapy in their cities. All levels of government have roles to play in eliminating this harmful practice. I was pleased to get the support of my provincial and territorial colleagues when we met in January to discuss Criminal Code reforms to address conversion therapy.

There is no reason for anyone in the House to oppose this bill.

We are proud that so much is being done in Canada to address this destructive practice. Our efforts place us at the vanguard of the international community. For example, Malta is the only jurisdiction known to have criminalized various aspects of conversion therapy. Its approach criminalizes conversion therapy to vulnerable persons, which is defined as persons under the age of 16 years, persons with a mental disorder or persons considered by the court to be at risk. Malta also criminalizes advertising conversion therapy as well as involuntary conversion therapy.

The approach that we are proposing goes even further. We are proposing to protect all children under the age of 18 from conversion therapy in Canada or abroad. We are also proposing to protect all Canadians from the negative messages associated with the advertisement of this harmful practice and those profiting from it.

We hopefully will be joined by others soon. For example, in March of 2018, the European Parliament passed a resolution condemning conversion therapy and urging European Union member states to ban the practice. Shortly thereafter, in July of 2018, the United Kingdom government announced that it intended to bring forward proposals to ban conversion therapy. I understand that work is ongoing.

In short, there is growing recognition worldwide of the destructive nature of this practice and acknowledgement that the criminal law is an appropriate way to address that harm.

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

Madam Speaker, in response to the minister's speech today, there are direct consequences regarding the fact the definition of conversion therapy is flawed. The bill would restrict freedom of choice and expression for all Canadians, including LGBTQ2 individuals.

I want to quote Lee, one of many young transgender individuals who has de-transitioned and realized some important truths for de-transition. She said, “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.”

Lee reflects on her realization that with all of her issues she should not have been encouraged to transition, but rather wished that somebody would have tried to stop her as transitioning did not work for her.

Does the minister affirm that Bill C-6 would take away Lee's rights to have conversations of her choosing with anyone of her choosing in private or in the public square to change the outcome of what she recognizes in her case as a regrettable transition?

[David Lametti, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for giving us an example of where the law, as drafted, intends to protect the legitimate conversations that a person would have with a health care provider, a parent, a religious mentor or other persons in the legitimate exploration of one's identity.

I repeat that nothing in this law bans these kinds of legitimate discussions about one's identity or finding one's identity. Rather, it is banning a practice that is saying something about one's identity is wrong and therefore needs to be changed. That is what we are banning and it is critically important we do so.

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Madam Speaker, I congratulate the Minister of Justice on the bill we are debating today.

In my opinion, it is important for those who have undergone so-called conversion therapy to see that we are addressing the problem. I am surprised to hear my Conservative colleagues saying that the bill is not clear. It seems to me that the bill clearly prohibits conversion therapy for minors and forcing someone to undergo conversion therapy without their consent. That is very clear to me. This is a fundamental issue. The minister can certainly count on our support. The bill addresses abhorrent and I would even say barbaric practices stemming from extremist religious practices.

I would like to know whether the government intends to address other extremist religious practices, such as female genital mutilation or the imposition of sharia law in some courts.

I would like to know what the Minister of Justice thinks about that.

[David Lametti, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his question and his support of this bill.

We absolutely must act together on this. As a Quebecker and a Canadian, I am proud that, a few weeks ago, my Quebec counterpart, Minister Simon Jolin-Barrette, announced his intention to introduce a complementary measure.

It is important to talk about this bill today. This bill is very important to the LGBTQ2 community because it will protect their rights. I will let the bill speak for itself.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the minister for introducing the bill and assure him, once again, that New Democrats will be supporting Bill C-6 at second reading.

My question for the minister is very simple. Survivors of conversion therapy have been outspoken in their concern that this bill falls short of a total ban on conversion therapy and that its language might not be comprehensive enough to capture all current practices directed at transgender and non-binary Canadians to try to force them to deny their true selves.

Will the minister confirm that he is open to both these kinds of changes at the justice committee to address these concerns?

[David Lametti, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member not only for his support but his leadership on these very important issues.

It is true that this does not represent a total ban. He is correct in his reading of the legislation. There will be a charter statement that I will table very soon in the House which explains our reasons for not going further.

I want to reassure the hon. member publicly, as I have in our private conversations, that I am open to all good faith attempts to improve the bill. If he believes there is a way in which we can explore a larger definition, I am always prepared to consider that.

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

Madam Speaker, as the hon. member for Fredericton has already put on the record, the Green Party is also very much in support of a complete ban on conversion therapy. I join the member for Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke in thanking the minister for bringing forward Bill C-6.

How open will the government be to amendments that, without violating the charter considerations, provide moves toward a more complete ban on this monestrous practice? It cannot be called therapy; it is so destructive.

[David Lametti, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC]

Madam Speaker, I agree that one ought to put therapy in quotation marks when discussing this practice. I agree it is a horrific practice.

As I have just assured the member for Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, I am open to all good faith amendments that seek to clarify or work within the confines of the charter to extend the parameters of the legislation.

We want Canada to be leaders on this and therefore I am willing to work with members across the aisle to make it better.

[Adam Vaughan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Families]

Madam Speaker, much of the health care system of the country is governed by provincial and territorial jurisdiction and government. I am curious as to what kind of conversations the minister has had with his provincial counterparts to ensure there is no back-door access to a practice we are seeking to severely limit and restrict.

[David Lametti, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC]

Madam Speaker, as I said in my main speech, I have raised this with provincial and territorial counterparts. There was widespread support. I mentioned Quebec most recently, but a number of those jurisdictions have already moved to ensure this is not a “health care service” given at the provincial level, health care being within the jurisdiction of the provinces.

They also regulate the medical profession and other health care professions. There are movements within those professions to make the conduct unethical, according to the code of ethics or deontological ethics of these various professional bodies. Municipalities can also work with us by banning it as a business practice within their jurisdictions.

I would assure the hon. member that there is a great deal of co-operation across the levels of government and across Canada, and I am very proud of that.

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

Very short question from the member for Hastings—Lennox and Addington.

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

Madam Speaker, unfortunately my questions are slightly longer than very short, but I will try to keep it brief.

For me, the devil is in the details in all of this. I have two quick questions for the hon. minister.

In the CPA policy statement, which is linked to on the justice website, prayer is listed as being a part of conversion therapy. In the context of this definition, would the wrong type of prayers be criminalized under the legislation? I have one follow-up question on the same CPA policy statement. It only mentions—

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

I am sorry, but we will have to stay with just one question.

The hon. Minister of Justice.

[David Lametti, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC]

Madam Speaker, as is clear in the legislation and as was clear in my remarks, what we are banning is a practice. There is a great difference between whether one is in a discussion or whether one is praying. There is a great difference between trying to determine who someone is on the one hand, and telling someone that who they are is problematic or wrong and then trying to change it to something else. We are trying to—

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

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry.

[Eric Duncan, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today as the first speaker at second reading from our caucus on Bill C-6, an act to amend the Criminal Code regarding conversion therapy, formerly Bill C-8 before COVID-19 changed our model here and we lost a few months on this legislation.

I am honoured to stand in the House of Commons today to provide some comments and feedback on the bill and at times a personal perspective, as we all share a common goal to eliminate the harmful practice of conversion therapy across Canada.

I want to start on a personal note about the debate in this chamber. In the last few weeks many colleagues have stood to ask questions and offer commentaries in the debate around Bill C-7, on medical assistance in dying. As I mostly watched that from my office on television, I want to commend members on the tone and the civility of the debate. The questions and the debate going back and forth have been very civil, constructive and very worthy of the House and the debates that we hope to have similarly on a piece of legislation such as this.

I want to acknowledge the work of the provincial partners, as the minister mentioned in his comments, that did work in provincial jurisdictions before we were dealing with this piece of legislation in Ottawa. In Ontario in 2015, a law was passed, and in Manitoba in 2015 and Nova Scotia in 2018.

I may be a bit biased, being from Ontario, but I want to acknowledge the work that was done at Queen's Park in the provincial legislature. It is my understanding that it was the first in Canada, but also that all the parties worked together to get unanimous support for that bill, which proceeded to ban conversion therapy in the province of Ontario.

It shows how legislatures and parliamentarians from different parties can work together on issues of common concern. I believe we can achieve the same goal here in Ottawa. We all agree with the common goal, calling out conversion therapy for what it is: a terrible, inhumane, dangerous practice against the LGBTQ community that needs to be eliminated in Canada.

As I start my comments here today, I want to acknowledge the many organizations that have worked for years to raise awareness of this issue. As we debate and discuss the details of the legislation, we need to always remember the stories and the scars of those who have suffered through some form of conversion therapy.

There are many who have come forward to share their stories, to help educate us and to bring light to this issue. Unfortunately, there are some who have not been able to share their stories with us, because they are not with us anymore. The torture, the pain that they faced was too much to handle. Many suffered in silence. Too many have taken their lives because of the harms that conversion therapy caused them.

We often talk in the House about making our Parliament more diverse and reflective of Canada, by gender, by race, by profession, by sexual orientation and by lived experiences. As we debate this legislation, this is exactly why we aspire to that goal: to bring perspective from across the country, and to share stories and experiences that could help guide us all. I want to do that today for a few moments.

I have said a few times over the last year that I have talked more about my sexual orientation this past year than I have in my entire 33 years. I am a proud gay man who lives in rural eastern Ontario, and I have come to realize that my story matters. If I could get personal here for a moment, I want to talk about my story and my coming out.

It was back in 2017, in my hometown of Winchester, Ontario, a small town with lots of churches and a mix of bedroom community people working in Ottawa and people who have called the rural community home for their entire lives. People coming out maybe was not as common as it would be in downtown Ottawa or downtown Toronto or other places. I served as the mayor of my community at that time. I was out to my family and friends, and I had decided that it was important for me to let my community know that I am a proud gay man so that I could live my life openly, happily and freely.

I wrote a letter on a Sunday morning at about nine o'clock, posted it on Facebook and it went viral. I was not expecting the reaction. It was the lead story on the news channel the next day, and it went viral on Facebook.

What I was hoping from that was indifference, that people would just move on and not care, in a good way, showing how far we had come. However, what I got was the absolute opposite. The love, compassion and support I got from people was overwhelming, people from all different backgrounds and different life experiences. I find that as more people share their stories, it becomes a degree of separation.

I went to bed that night very happy and on a high. Unfortunately, it did not last too long. A couple of days later, in a community just south of my hometown, a young gay man only a couple of years younger than I was took his life. The high I had felt a few nights previous was equally emotional a couple of days later in the struggles he had faced, a variety of struggles. If that were not enough, there was a further degree of separation that broke my heart.

A friend of mine had let me know that a friend of his was a closeted gay man who had married a woman but was actually gay and struggling with his sexual orientation. He was nervous about coming out to his family, friends and community, and he hid it. He suffered and suffered in silence until he could not take it anymore.

I share these stories not because I know that any of the individuals were subject to conversion therapy, but it shows the struggles that people still face. Even with the positive experience I had with my family, friends and community, we need to acknowledge that it is not the same for everybody. We need to show compassion and care and understanding, whether someone is coming to terms with their sexual orientation or their gender identity.

Adding on something like conversion therapy to a child, any sort of therapy in that regard to change somebody, would be devastating for them to go through. What they would have to go through and what they are subjected to is so fundamentally wrong and dangerous. Subjecting a child to it to change them to be who they are not is wrong. It is dangerous and it must end.

I want to talk about the first speech our new leader gave here in the House when there was an opportunity to speak to this legislation when it was tabled by the minister. I have to say I am really proud of his response, his compassion and his understanding of the issue. He spoke of his military service. He spoke about how a fundamental part of his job, of that service, was to defend the rights of all Canadians wherever his service took him. He did that proudly in our military and he has done that as a member of Parliament here in this chamber when legislation has come forward. The NDP legislation a few years ago on gender identity was a key example of that.

I want to reflect on and put back on the record a quote from what our leader said that day, which really stuck with me. He said:

I stood and was counted for rights that day. As a parliamentarian, I am here to secure the rights of every Canadian, including those in the LGBTQ community, and to build an inclusive and prosperous country for all. Now, as leader of the Conservative Party, I pledge to continue this work.

Conservatives agree that conversion therapy is wrong and should be banned. No Canadian should be forced to change who they are, whether it be their sexual orientation or their gender identity. We know that too many Canadians have been harmed by this practice and, as parliamentarians, we have a responsibility to protect the most vulnerable in our society. That includes members of the LGBTQ community, who have been the target of degrading and dehumanizing practices in an effort to change their sexual orientation against their will. Everyone deserves to be treated with dignity and respect.

The bill states:

This [legislation] amends the Criminal Code to, among other things, create the following offences:

(a) causing a person to undergo conversion therapy against the person’s will;

(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) advertising an offer to provide conversion therapy; and

(e) receiving a financial or other material benefit from the provision of conversion therapy.

I want to talk briefly about the details of the legislation and something that I have been able to speak about with many colleagues on different sides of the House, and even my constituents back home in Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, as they have questions and comments about the legislation. I will use a specific quote. The bill says, “repress or reduce non-heterosexual attraction or sexual behaviour” as part of the definition of conversion therapy.

I want to talk about the difficulty sometimes, in my opinion and my own life experiences, of trying to come up with a definition of conversion therapy that acknowledges how conversion therapy has changed in what it is over the years. Many people think of it as electroshock therapy, a terrible, horrible practice that I hope and believe is mostly eradicated in our country. I am not saying it is completely gone, but there has been an evolution over the years of what conversion therapy is, from that visual of electroshock therapy to what is more of a repression. It is some sort of therapy session to suppress feelings: It is okay to be gay but just do not act on it, or it is okay to have a different gender identity but just do not act on it. The suppression of that thought is equally as damaging as anything else.

When we talk about that, I want to acknowledge that the latest unfortunate trends and those who promote or offer conversation therapy are not so much the vision of something we saw decades ago, but something that is treated more as a therapy, when in fact it is anything but that.

As we move forward in the debate on this legislation and when the bill hopefully gets to second reading and into committee where the bill can be studied and discussed further, my Conservative team has noted that we will be proposing a reasonable amendment that will bring even more support to this legislation. I believe it to be fair, reasonable and bipartisan. I believe it should have the support of the government. That is because I believe we can simply add the words of its own news release earlier this year to confirm what the minister has said before.

As I am not a legal expert, the words the minister acknowledged in his comments could be put into the legislation for greater certainty, saying that private conversations are not subject to criminal prosecution. I will read the quote because I believe it. It is the intent of the legislation and I believe the legislation would be better off if the minister's words in the news release were put into the legislation. He stated:

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.

I believe that to be the intent of this legislation, in my own personal view. It would be reasonable and appropriate if we could work, as the minister said, in good faith, which he has from myself and members of my party, to bring that forward and get it included.

I am happy to see that Parliament is tackling the issue of banning conversion therapy. The sooner that we put a stop to it, the more lives we will save and the better quality of life and promising future we can give young members of the LGBTQ community.

I mentioned earlier that I talk a bit more often about my sexual orientation and being a proud gay man, but something I have talked less about is my faith. I know for many Canadians in every part of this country their faith guides them in the decisions they make and values they have.

As I reflect on my own personal faith, I will say this. My faith and the values my church taught me have not guided me away from this legislation, but the opposite. They have taught me to support it, to stand up for vulnerable neighbours and friends, to show empathy and compassion, to be there and stand up for those who cannot do it on their own. That is what my faith has taught me and where it has guided me. It is guiding me to be behind this legislation and seeing it enacted as we work together through committee, third reading and eventually on to the Senate.

I will end my comments today not with debate on the specific legislation, but with a message to young gay or trans children. It is okay to be gay. It is okay to be trans. It is right for them to live their lives as who they are and be who they are. Canadians know that subjecting anyone to conversion therapy is wrong and we must protect those who are vulnerable.

I am grateful for the time today to offer my support for ending conversion therapy, for working together here in second reading, in committee and in the Senate to make this happen and get the job done together. We need to do this for the young children I mentioned and for those who are tragically not with us anymore. We must act on their stories and struggles to do better. Let us continue this work and get it done for them.

[Adam Vaughan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Families]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague opposite for what can only be described as a beautiful speech. Beautiful speeches often have a shadow of pain to show the contrast that creates that beauty. I want to thank him for sharing his thoughts and experience with us today. It makes us all better to know each other that way and to understand where we have come from and where we are trying to get to. I truly wish to express my gratitude for his good words today.

He talked about words he has for young people who are struggling as they emerge into their sexuality and gender, but he also comes from a community where older people have seen the world change. If we go back 10 years in this House, we will see a debate around same-sex marriage, which was not quite so beautiful and had some very painful moments for all us who have family members who have benefited from the changes that we have lived through.

What are the words he would share with older people in his community who have seen this change to give them comfort that their best interests and their loved ones are being cared for with this legislation?

[Eric Duncan, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for the kind words.

After I came out, I had a Facebook post to thank everyone, and the line that I have used many times since to talk about it is that every person who shares their story opens up new hearts and new minds. This is where I believe we have made a lot of progress in our country in the last 10 or 15 years. It has been a more comfortable environment, albeit not a perfect one, for more people to come out with their gender identity, sexual orientation, and to live their lives the way they were born to do.

What I have tried to do in my service here in Ottawa as an MP, and before that as a mayor or just somebody from a small, rural community where maybe there is that degree of separation and of not knowing somebody that is there all the time, is to say that I believe, as with the legislation before us, that we can send a message to say that conversion therapy is wrong, because a person does not need to be converted. Regardless of a person's sexual orientation or gender identity, one can live and be free in who they are. However, I also acknowledge that for the progress that we have made, there is still a long way to go, and that it is not as easy for everybody under certain circumstances.

I believe this legislation goes in the right direction, and it takes away what I feel is such a negative force in somebody's life if they were subject to conversion therapy. If we can ban and get rid of the practice, take it right off the table, I believe it would give more young people, whether it be with sexual orientation or gender identity, a better hope for a better future and better support from their community and their Parliament.

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

Madam Speaker, I am participating remotely, but I heard the member get some enthusiastic and justly deserved applause. I too applaud him for sharing his story.

The Bloc Québécois will support this bill. It is about basic dignity and fairness for the entire LGBTQ2 community.

I do have a question for my colleague, though. He emphasized that the bill needs amending. Would the member tell us more about the amendments he wants to see? Private conversations between family members and a child will not be banned.

In what ways would the member like to amend this bill?

[Eric Duncan, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON]

Madam Speaker, as I mentioned in my speech, I believe that we are proposing what we feel are reasonable amendments. In my comments, I used a bipartisan approach to this. I know that many of my colleagues thought the same when they read the news release from the Department of Justice back in March with the comments about what the legislation does not entail. It was worded better, and I think that parts were not in the legislation. Simply taking what was in the government's own news release with its own intent and clarification and putting those words in the legislation, we would have even more support for this and can give further clarity.

If there is comfort for the government to put those words in its news release, then there should be comfort in putting that in for greater clarity in the legislation itself. I take the minister at his word on good will, good-intentioned amendments, and this is one of them. I firmly believe we can send an even stronger message in this Parliament with that amendment and with more support.

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

Madam Speaker, I will start by thanking the member for Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry for adding a diverse voice to this Parliament. I thank him for standing up and very bravely sharing his story with us and, of course, I thank him for his strong support for the bill before us.

There are many things that we may share as out-gay men, and there are many things we will probably agree on, but I have to say that I have some concerns about the kind of amendment the member is talking about, because conversion therapy in Canada goes on in the shadows. We have to be careful to bring it out of the shadows and ban it.

However, my question for the member is a more difficult question. Since he has said that Conservatives believe that conversion therapy is wrong, and he has stressed that he sees it as an attack on fundamental rights of our community, then how is it that he sees that a free vote is appropriate, allowing his colleagues to vote against fundamental rights and freedoms for members of our community, and to vote against our right to be protected against harmful practices like conversion therapy?

[Eric Duncan, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON]

Madam Speaker, I want to begin acknowledging the work that the hon. member has done in his time in Ottawa and the leadership he has shown, to pave the way for people such as myself to follow in his shoes as we talk about LGBTQ issues in legislation.

A fundamental building block of the Conservative Party of Canada is free votes on these types of issues. I would not want to be subject to vote for something that I do not want to on something like this. I am proud to be able to, on issues that come forward for free vote, vote the way that I want. As we work together and debate this legislation here and as we get to committee, as our leader said, there are many members who want to get to yes on this, who want to get clarification and study some of the details of the bill.

I think, from our Conservative Party and the comments that our leader has made and many of our colleagues have raised, there is good intention here to get to yes, to understand what conversion therapy exactly is and want to ban it. I am proud to be able to have a free vote. That goes for myself on a myriad of different issues in our caucus. That is a fundamental building block of our party that I think makes our party stronger.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his personal story and for the amendment he is proposing. I think a lot of us would welcome that if it were included in the legislation.

If there are no amendments to this bill, is he concerned that it will suffer the same fate that the medical assistance in dying bill faced when it was struck down in court and is now back in front of us in the House of Commons yet again?

[Eric Duncan, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON]

Madam Speaker, I have been a member of Parliament for one year and I am getting the legal hang of things bit by bit, but I will not presuppose what may happen if the amendment is not there. My focus right now is working with my colleagues who are on the justice committee, as we get to second reading, and talking about it. As the minister just said in his speech, he is open to good-faith amendments that can improve and strengthen the bill. I believe right now we should focus on that. We have an opportunity here.

My colleagues from the Bloc had said in their comments, as well, what this bill is not. I agree with what it is not, so let us put it in for greater certainty. I do not want to presuppose what may happen. My goal is that we can work together here in Parliament, support a reasonable amendment like this and get a very large number of members on third reading to support this. I think this builds on the strength of the legislation and, more importantly, sends a strong message to all of the country that whether a person is a member of the LGBTQ community or a supporter of it, Parliament strongly supports the rights of the LGBTQ community, and sends a strong message to end conversion therapy.

[Majid Jowhari, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Madam Speaker, I have a quick question on the positive impacts of this bill on the mental health of those individuals who were previously exposed to this type of treatment.

[Eric Duncan, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON]

Madam Speaker, I think this legislation would correct for the future subjecting children to this dangerous practice. So, it would eliminate and go there. I also think, as I said in my comments, this is a testimony and a tribute to those who have been victims of conversion therapy. Although we could not have stopped it in the past, we send a message here today that it is wrong, that their stories do matter and they have made a difference on future members who may not be—

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

Resuming debate.

The hon. member for Laurentides—Labelle.

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

Madam Speaker, I ask for consent from the House to share my time with the hon. member for Berthier—Maskinongé.

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

Does the hon. member have the consent of the House?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

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

The hon. member for Laurentides—Labelle.

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

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to an important bill, Bill C-6, an act to amend the Criminal Code with regard to conversion therapy. In my opinion, this bill should be passed quickly to ensure that LGBTQ2 individuals receive all the respect they deserve.

Bill C-6 proposes to amend sections of the Criminal Code in order to create offences related to the practice of conversion therapy. It is identical to Bill C-8, which was introduced in March 2020, before Parliament shut down. I hope it will pass unanimously in the House in this 43rd Parliament.

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, under the PQ government of Mr. Landry, when it instituted civil unions. 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.

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

I want every member to put themselves in the shoes of a vulnerable person 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 because of a lack of acceptance by parents or any organization.

In Quebec, respect for gender identity and sexual orientation is an incontrovertible value, and conversion therapy violates that value.

Who are we to judge what is good for a person and to attempt to convince them that they should be different, in a society that is so inclusive and respectful of human rights? Experts say that conversion therapies are pseudoscience. Not only are they dangerous and degrading, but many studies show that, obviously, they do not work.

According to the World Health Organization, these practices represent a serious threat to the health and well-being of affected people. Furthermore, according to the Canadian Psychological Association, conversion or reparative therapy can result in negative outcomes such as distress, anxiety, depression, negative self-image, a feeling of personal failure, and even difficulty sustaining relationships and sexual dysfunction. That is very serious. Unfortunately, it is happening here, in the shadows. I personally was appalled to learn that these practices are still being used in 2020. I am ashamed.

Let us look to the example of the courageous Gabriel Nadeau, a former member of a Pentecostal Protestant community who spoke out publicly about his painful experience undergoing conversion therapy three times. I would respectfully like to share what happened to him. Describing his therapy sessions, Gabriel 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:

In my community, it was believed that homosexuality was an evil spirit, a demon. That is what I was taught, and I believed it myself. I knew that exorcisms were performed.

Here is what he said about how this kind of therapy affected him:

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.

This gives me shivers. It is terrifying. As a mother, it breaks my heart. This must change, and it needs to change as fast as possible. Fortunately, as distinct as they are, Quebec and Canadian societies have a lot in common, particularly in terms of values. We agree on a number of issues and adopt similar policies that translate into progress when it comes to rights.

As the Bloc Québécois critic for living together, I want to highlight the Quebec government's initiative in protecting human rights. We welcome Bill 70, which was introduced by the Quebec justice minister with the goal of outlawing conversion therapy.

In closing, here is what Gabriel said in an interview in July 2019:

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 want to tell Gabriel and everyone watching right now that, no matter their gender identity or sexual orientation, they are seen, they are loved and they are beautiful.

I am happy to say that the Bloc Québécois has always been deeply committed to protecting and promoting the rights and freedoms of the people of Quebec. 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 and gender.

For all these reasons, the Bloc Québécois supports the Criminal Code amendments in Bill C-6. The Bloc Québécois will support this bill.

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

Madam Speaker, I really appreciate the tone of the discussions. It would seem members from all sides of the House recognize the importance of the legislation before us, and conversion therapy has been an issue for a great deal of time. It is encouraging to see this get to second reading today.

I am wondering if the member has any sense of specific amendments the Bloc would like to see to the legislation, or are Bloc members waiting for it to go to committee before they provide further comment with respect to amendments?

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my esteemed colleague for his question.

Considering what we have to work with now, and considering that this bill was originally introduced last March, I think we need to get a move on. That is what I said earlier during my speech. We need to act fast.

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

Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague just gave an example of a very serious and inappropriate intervention, which I would definitely identify as conversion therapy. That is why comments from individuals who have been exposed to this type of thing are important.

I just want to share that Cari spoke to her own experience when she was prescribed hormones after four sessions of therapy. She noted that no attempts were made, at these therapy sessions, to process personal issues that she raised, and that no one in the medical or psychological field ever tried to dissuade her from her gender transition, or to offer any option other than maybe to wait till she was 18. This revelation, of medical and psychological professionals not providing balanced options for Cari, would be validated by this legislation with its current definition of conversion therapy.

Is the member concerned that medical and psychological professionals are being prevented from providing individuals with other options because of the fear of being penalized within their own fields? As an example, Ken Zucker, a world-renowned Canadian gender expert, was fired from CAMH for his “watchful waiting” approach with young gender-dysphoric youth. Today, he could possibly also be prosecuted.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question.

I want to reiterate that we must do something quickly to make sure that what Mr. Nadeau went through never happens again. Nothing should be happening against the person's will.

This bill will allow us to take action and to impose the necessary restrictions. We can then look at whether there are other issues, but for now, we must focus on quickly eliminating conversion therapy, which still exists today, in 2020.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Madam Speaker, just last year there was a case in which a young man was brought into a workplace that was receiving government assistance. He was confronted about being gay and asked to convert to keep his job. These situations are still real.

How does the hon. member feel about someone like that now having to walk away from a job? They are pursuing it in other ways now, but what would she say to a youth who thought they were going to be working at a dream job, and then actually has to face that circumstance and leave the job?

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague.

It is appalling to think that people are still being discriminated against not only by parents or religious organizations, but also at work.

I sincerely hope that the amendments in this bill are made. I mentioned that it is important to be respected and loved for who we are, and I think this is a step in the right direction for 2020.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am honoured to rise today to speak to Bill C-6 on behalf of the Bloc Québécois and on behalf of my constituents in Berthier—Maskinongé.

Members will not be surprised to hear that Bloc Québécois members support this bill, if for no other reason than to show respect for members of the LGBTQ+ community.

I must say that I have some mixed feelings. I should be thrilled to see Parliament pass such a bill and finally address this issue. However, it is 2020, and it makes absolutely no sense that this has not yet been addressed. I urge my 337 colleagues to quickly pass this bill, as my colleague from Laurentides—Labelle said so well.

We have a duty to protect and advocate for rights and freedoms. We have a duty to protect the equality of all Quebeckers and Canadians. We must protect them from any form of discrimination, and in particular discrimination based on sexual orientation.

We must condemn such practices, which deny the very existence of the person and do not respect their core identity. Quebec has a charter of human rights and freedoms that has prohibited all forms of discrimination based on sexual orientation since 1977. Quebec has allowed civil unions between same-sex partners since 2002. We are proud of that, but we need to go one step further and respect everyone's gender identity and sexual orientation.

If my colleagues in the House take the time to read up on this and read testimonials, some of which have already been referenced this morning, it quickly becomes apparent that all of these therapies are an appalling form of violence. As my colleagues already know, the Bloc Québécois denounces all forms of violence, without exception.

Conversion therapy is one of them. They are based on a dangerous, demeaning and ineffective pseudoscience promoted by minority groups—I would even say splinter groups—related to some form of religious belief.

I am sure my colleagues would agree that we must respect people's beliefs, but that respect must be reciprocated through respect for individual freedom. As such, there are lines that cannot be crossed.

I applaud the action that the House of Commons is about to take. I also applaud the action of the Government of Quebec, which is preparing to pass similar legislation. I am pleased that the Government of Canada is recognizing, through its bill, that in a democracy, there is reason to affirm collective values and regulate religious practices that go contrary to those values under the law.

This bill seeks to prohibit forcing a person to undergo conversion therapy against their will. We also want to prohibit subjecting a child to conversion therapy or doing anything to remove children from Canada to have the them undergo conversion therapy outside the country. We want to prohibit advertising related to conversion therapy and prohibit anyone from receiving material or other benefit from providing conversion therapy.

My colleagues will have noticed that two of those points refer to children. We want to protect children and prevent them from having to endure this torture. That is the duty of any society that claims to be civilized.

Before I became a member of the House of Commons, I was a high school teacher. As such, I am very much aware of how feeling accepted, listened to and supported contributes to personal development. For 25 years, I have witnessed first-hand the upheaval of adolescence, which we all know is not always easy. Some think that it is an impossible challenge, but I have always thrived on challenge.

My thoughts go out to all the young people who are currently questioning their core identity and sexual orientation. We too, all of us, questioned ourselves in that regard when we were their age. These young people are afraid. They are full of doubt and a desire to be “normal”. They want to be popular and accepted by others. When it comes to acceptance, we also need to think about how traumatizing it must be for someone to not be accepted by their own parents and the terrible harm that would cause.

The teen years are extremely important for self-esteem. Teens may be susceptible to depression, they are exposed to tremendous social pressure and they experience a lot of frustration. Most individuals, at some point in their teen years, feel alone in the world and misunderstood by everyone.

We all question ourselves and we all, at some point, feel defiant. Parents who sometimes disapprove of their teen's behaviour should realize that it is actually a positive sign for mental health. These young people are normal, they are challenging things. That is a good thing.

As everyone knows, it is a difficult time in a person's life. Just imagine the trauma of conversion therapy, which scars people. They feel judged by their parents, they may become depressed or suicidal, and so on. The pseudo-science of transformation may appear to be successful, but just imagine how dismal it must be to not express one's true identity, to not live life to the fullest.

Let me say this to the House: it is a loss for that person and a loss for society as a whole. We must live and let live.

I will conclude by talking about my experience as a teacher. I have had the pleasure of seeing people's attitudes and judgments change over the past 25 years. I have seen homosexual relationships being formed and not subjected to the crushing judgment of others. It has been wonderful to see. Today, I am asking that we take one more step forward. Let us guarantee individual freedom.

Earlier, we heard about a young man, Gabriel Nadeau. He said that four people held him while a prophet yelled in his ears and they made him drink holy olive oil. Other accounts describe people who say the Holy Spirit dwells in them and that, in the name of Jesus, they will release the wicked devil. That is ridiculous.

Our civil society must protect youth while respecting general religious beliefs. That is our duty. How can we not be shocked or outraged by such accounts? It is utterly absurd. It is our duty to protect our children from these charlatans. That is our responsibility. Today, I appeal to the dignity of elected members.

It is our responsibility to protect young people regardless of their orientation. Let us be worthy and overwhelmingly support this bill. Statistics show that more than 47,000 men have been subjected to this type of therapy. Many organizations offer this type of therapy for a fee that can run as high as $12,000.

The World Health Organization recognizes these practices as a health threat. The Canadian Psychological Association identified the very serious adverse effects of this practice. I named them earlier: stress, anxiety, depression, and the list goes on. The Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights described these practices as abusive. Almost every organization around the world agrees that these practices are unacceptable. The report of the Alliance Arc-en-ciel de Québec speaks volumes and shares several accounts of confinement, assault, physical and emotional abuse, parents who failed to protect their child from bodily and mental harm by leaving them with a third party who would torture them. In fact, that is what we are talking about. Let's call a spade a spade. This is torture.

Of course Quebec society and Canadian society are distinct societies. That is a theme that comes up a lot in our speeches. However, these societies also have the privilege of sharing several common values such as the protection of individual rights, protection of the integrity of individuals, and the protection of diversity.

Today I am pleased to see that Quebec's legislative assembly and Canadian Parliament see eye to eye for once. That feels good.

Let's tell the world that being yourself whether you are gay, lesbian, transgender or any other identification is fine; it is normal. This should not even be up for debate in a parliament. Everyone—

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

I must stop the member, because his time is up. He will have more time to speak during questions and comments.

[Francis Drouin, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Berthier—Maskinongé for his speech.

The member raised a good point. No matter how different our parties are, individual freedoms and the right to life are extremely important in Canada. Although I come from a different party, 17 years ago, I fought for the rights of gays and lesbians and everyone in the LGBTQ2 community to marry.

Today we are saying no to conversion therapy. I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on the importance of criminalizing this deplorable activity in our community.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Madam Speaker, I sincerely thank my colleague for his heartfelt question. There is a reason that we generally agree on things, and that is because we share the same values.

This is important because there must be consequences for those who torture others. It is as simple as that. There must be consequences if someone fails to protect a child.

We need to send a message. It is all well and good to have legislation, verdicts and consequences, but ultimately, Parliament needs to send a clear message that respect for the individual comes first.

I am sure that my dear colleague would not mind letting me read the last sentence of my speech, because it is quite beautiful. Everyone who finds the strength to love should be able to do so freely.

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

Madam Speaker, in the case of one YouTuber, Elle Palmer, she started taking testosterone at the age of 16. She struggled for many 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 ever be happy in her own body. At the time, she did not realize it was possible to not hate her body.

Right now Bill C-6 would criminalize someone like Elle for sharing her transition story. Does the member suggest that we need to restrict her free, respectful and exploratory speech because her story reaches out to others who may be considering de-transition?

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her very relevant question.

It gives me an opportunity to set the record straight and to make a general appeal to the House. I would ask members not to confuse the issue. Of course, there will be cases where people will want to undergo the reverse process. It happens a lot. I know people like that. Last year I taught some students who are currently undergoing this sort of transformation. I know what I am talking about, but I cannot speak for everyone. There will always be exceptions. We are talking here about medical treatment. The age of consent for a medical treatment is under 18. We need to be careful and be sure not to confuse matters.

The law is worded very reasonably. It does a lot to protect children. I gave examples earlier. We are talking about therapy against a person's will. We are not talking about prohibiting an adult from undergoing some kind of treatment. I think this is a very reasonable first step and I invite all members of the House to pass this bill unanimously or at least by a large majority.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. I completely agree with him. It was actually inspiring.

I am a member from Montreal and I am proud of that. We have one of the biggest, nicest pride parades every year. In recent years, some people have been wondering whether we even still need the flags, music and floats, but I still hear horror stories. My colleague used the words “charlatan” and “torture”. I do not think those words are too strong to describe what is happening.

Does this not show that there is still a lot of work to do for the LGBTQ2 community and that we need to continue to stand up for the rights of its members?

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie for the nice compliment and for agreeing with me.

People who are open-minded and accept others for who they are sometimes tend to wonder if we still need pride parades after all this time. I would say we do, and for one simple reason: As long as people feel the need to hold such parades, and as long as such concerns persist, awareness raising must continue. The struggle for equal rights is never over.

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

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-6 today. As always, I look forward to the day that we can all be back in the chamber instead of speaking to pinhole cameras, though I am mindful of the fact that any inconveniences or challenges we face as MPs pale in significance to the impact of COVID on ordinary Canadians who have lost loved ones, lost livelihoods or who are still working on the front lines in this pandemic. These impacts have been even more strongly felt by the most marginalized among us, and especially the community I come from.

I speak today as the NDP spokesperson on sexual orientation and gender identity and expression, or SOGIE for short, but I also speak as an out gay man, someone who has been out in public life for nearly three decades. I wish we had a more representative Parliament today when it comes to topics affecting my community, like conversion therapy. Unfortunately, many of those voices we should be hearing from are absent. In the House, we have only four out gay MPs, and we have no out lesbians and no transgender or non-binary MPs. We are short about 30 MPs from my community.

Some jurisdictions have done better. In fact, New Zealand just elected what has been described as the gayest Parliament in the world, at 10% representation. While it is great to celebrate this as a milestone, I might suggest a more accurate headline that goes something like “New Zealand finally elects a Parliament that nears fair representation of the SOGIE community”. Then the story would have to go on to say that the total does not include any trans or non-binary MPs, despite New Zealand having elected the first trans MP in the world, Georgina Beyer, who served from 1999 to 2007.

I also want to give a quick shout-out today to British Columbia, which has just re-elected six SOGIE MLAs. It looks like the number will still be six when the dust settles, but that is about 7% of the legislature again and ties the U.K. This is compared to a mere 1% in the House. That is a hint to both SOGIE individuals and parties when it comes to nominations for the next election, and as someone who is always recruiting, as the gay stereotype goes, I know this remains a challenge.

Why is there a long preamble on representation? I firmly believe that the most diverse parliaments make the best legislation. It is not only that diverse parliaments are likely to have more MPs with lived experience on the topics at hand, although that is true, but that, perhaps more importantly, they will have the networks in the communities they represent and in Canada as a whole to bring those diverse experiences and voices to bear on the matters at hand. Besides, it is also important to remember, as one wag once said, “If you're not at the table, you're much more likely to be on the menu.” Clearly, in this Parliament we have more work to do to make sure diverse voices are heard on the topic of conversion therapy.

When it comes to Bill C-6, which seeks to end the practice of conversion therapy in Canada, I want to start by saying three things, at least two of which should be obvious to all but clearly are not.

The first is that no one in the SOGIE community needs to be fixed because of their sexual orientation, gender identity or gender expression. The prevalence of homophobia and transphobia makes it hard enough for many of us to live authentic lives as who we are, at home, at work and everywhere else in our daily lives. The very idea that we can or need to be fixed, which is fundamental to the concept of conversion therapy, only serves to reinforce homophobia and transphobia. The idea that one’s sexual orientation or gender identity could possibly be changed is especially problematic for those who, early in their lives, are still working their way toward figuring out exactly who they are. For queer youth, the idea they need to be fixed can and does contribute to both self-hate and fear of rejection by family and friends, both very damaging to mental health.

The second thing that should be obvious, which I think is to most people, is that certain sexual orientations and gender identities and expressions are not better than others. It is certainly not appropriate for governments to prefer some sexual orientations and gender identities over others. Nor is it appropriate to disadvantage or fail to protect some of our citizens because of their gender identity, gender expression or sexual orientation. All of us are equally deserving of equal protection under the law, and that is the essence of the issues raised in Bill C-6.

Finally, the third thing I want to raise at the outset of this debate is apparently less well understood, though it is a clearly established fact. It is impossible to change someone’s sexual orientation or gender identity, and as a result, conversion therapy is harmful to those who are subjected to it.

As for the outcomes of these practices, whether they are called conversion therapy, reparative therapy, aversion therapy or gender affirming therapy, those names do not really matter: The results are always the same. There is no change, and those who are subjected to therapy suffer from outcomes that include guilt and shame, depression, social isolation and often self-harm or even death by suicide.

Fortunately, I was never subjected to conversion therapy, though some in my own family were anything but accepting. I recognize now, ironically, that attempts to beat the gay out of me may have been actually less harmful in the long run than being subjected to conversion therapy. That is because the overt violence allowed me to focus the resulting anger and hostility outward rather than inward on myself.

Frankly, it is hard to imagine that some of the torture that was carried out in the past, under the name of therapy, ever actually took place. Far too many Canadians were subjected to barbaric practices, such as electroshock therapy, chemical castration and even exorcism, as we heard today. It is equally hard for me to accept the idea that conversion therapy should still be going on in Canada to this day, no less harmful in its results, even if somewhat less brutal sometimes in its means.

The fact that conversion therapy is harmful to those subjected to it is the reason this pernicious practice has been condemned internationally and domestically by health professionals. More than eight years ago, on May 17, 2012, on the 22nd anniversary of the removal of homosexuality from the list of recognized mental disorders, the World Health Organization issued a statement labelling conversion therapy to be “a serious threat to the health and well-being—even the lives—of affected people.”

Eight years ago, the World Health Organization called for action at the national level to ban and place sanctions on conversion therapy. No organization of health professionals in Canada currently approves of or allows the practice of conversion therapy. No provincial health plans allow for the practice of conversion therapy as part of the public health care system.

Conversion therapy is no longer supposed to be taking place within the formal health care system in this country, yet we know that it still goes on in the shadows. Not only is it taking place in Canada, but some Canadians are still being sent for conversion therapy in the United States. A report on conversion therapy in Canada was published in February of this year. It surveyed over 7,200 gay, bisexual and two-spirit men. More than 20% reported being subjected to some form of conversion therapy. When it comes to transgender and non-binary Canadians, the numbers approach 50%.

It is one thing to know from formal studies that this is still taking place, but it is quite another to hear the brave survivors who have come forward to tell their stories of the harm they suffered as a result. I encourage all MPs to listen carefully to those stories.

When it comes to Bill C-6, let me say again, as we did last March and when the bill was reintroduced recently, the New Democrats will be supporting Bill C-6 at second reading. What the bill does can briefly be summarized as follows. It specifically criminalizes subjecting minors to conversion therapy and transporting minors out of Canada for the purpose of conversion therapy. It criminalizes subjecting adults to conversion therapy against their will, and it criminalizes what we call the business of conversion therapy.

The main strength of Bill C-6 is its focus on youth, for it is young people who conversion therapy is almost always directed against. It is young people who suffer the greatest harm from the attempts to force them to be someone they are not.

Its second strength is the suite of comprehensive measures to ban the practice or promotion of the business of conversion therapy, which would help ensure the practice is actually shut down by making it illegal to charge for, to profit from or to advertise conversion therapy for both minors and adults. The bill contains significant power to seek court orders to remove offending materials from online platforms.

Let me stop here for a moment to address the reddest of red herrings concerning this bill. This is the “what about” argument: “What about the rights of others?” and in particular, “What about the rights of others whose religious freedoms might be infringed by this bill?” For me, it is always a red flag when I hear arguments that start with “what about”. The resort to what about-ism is rarely about promoting real dialogue, and is instead usually a diversionary tactic to take the argument onto grounds that what about-ers think will make it easier for them to win the argument. What I am saying is that arguments that start with “what about” are most often exercises in distraction rather than attempts to confront the real issues before us.

Clause 5 of Bill C-6 says clearly that the definition of “conversion therapy” in the bill does not refer to “a person’s exploration of their identity or to its development.” This means that there is nothing in the bill that prevents parents from talking to their children about their sexual orientation or gender identity. Nothing in the bill prevents spiritual leaders from discussing these topics with their followers. Nothing in the bill prohibits anyone from holding bigoted and outdated ideas about sexual orientation or gender identity or expression. What it does prevent is taking those beliefs and ideas and turning them into hateful and harmful practices disguised as “therapy”. How the bill is an appropriate bill for a free vote is a question that I will continue to have for my Conservative colleagues.

Returning to the NDP position on the bill, again, as I have said, we will support it at second reading. However, we do believe the bill can and should be improved. What are those improvements we are looking for?

First, we would like to see the government respond positively to the demand from the SOGIE community for a full ban on conversion therapy, a ban for adults as well as for children.

The minister has made the argument previously that his goal here is to have a bill that is charter challenge proof. His solution has been to design Bill C-6 to avoid possible charter challenges by focusing on non-consenting adults, minors and the “business” of conversion therapy. It sets aside the question of so-called “consenting adults.”

This is a good argument in that I do believe the bill would survive a charter challenge as the provisions around the business of conversion therapy included will result in an effective ban on the practice for consenting adults, at least when it comes to paid services. However, a total ban would also survive a charter challenge. I would very much like to see any legal opinions that the government might have saying that it would not.

In brief, my argument here is that there is an equally compelling charter argument that it is a reasonable limit on fundamental rights to prohibit anyone from giving consent to a practice that is clearly harmful to those subjected to it. Without going too far down the legal rabbit hole here, there is parallel jurisprudence that has upheld restrictions on things like fight clubs, which leads me to conclude that a full ban would also be found charter compliant.

The second and perhaps more significant area in which the bill can be improved is in the language used to define what conversion therapy is. The language in Bill C-6 is actually pretty good when it comes to the traditional conversion therapy practice directed at sexual orientation. I am also glad that there is language in the bill attempting to ensure it covers banning conversion therapy directed at trans and non-binary Canadians.

This kind of practice is often styled as “gender-affirming therapy” or “transition treatment” or other such positive-sounding names. However, this is where the language in the bill is not so good. The committee will need to have a close look at this clause of the bill to ensure it is as comprehensive and up to date with current practice as possible when it comes to so-called therapies aimed at transgender and non-binary Canadians.

Now let me address a bit of revisionist history that has crept into the discussion of the bill. I want to take a moment to remind the House how we got here to second reading on a bill to ban conversion therapy. Of course elected officials have played a role, but not everyone who is on side now was always there.

Former Saskatoon West NDP MP Sheri Benson, the only out lesbian in the previous Parliament, sponsored petition e-1833 in the last Parliament, which called on the government to ban conversion therapy. That petition received nearly 20,000 signatures. When the petition was presented to the government in March of 2019, the Liberal government said it would take no action as it argued conversion therapy was a provincial responsibility.

In his 2019 Pride message, the NDP Leader, the member for Burnaby South, called for a ban as part of the NDP Platform. The Liberals still refused to budge. Then on September 29, in the midst of the election campaign just over a year ago, the Prime Minister suddenly changed course and promised a federal ban on conversion therapy. His December 2019 mandate letter for the justice minister included instructions to bring forward legislation to ban conversion therapy. I thank the minister for doing so and I welcome this conversion. I have no doubt also in the sincerity of his intentions to get a bill through this Parliament, which will end this practice.

However, let me stress today as always that no progress on SOGIE rights has ever taken place that has not been fought for by courageous members of our community and no place has that role been more important than in the case of brave conversion therapy survivors who have stepped up to tell their stories. Without them, the rest of us might have gone on blithely assuming that formal professional condemnation of conversion therapy was enough and had actually stopped this practice.

I cannot name all those who have spoken up, but let me quickly point to two who have helped deepen my understanding of how harmful this practice can be and how it continues to go on. I thank Erika Muse and Matt Ashcroft for speaking boldly and publicly.

There are days when the younger me is still surprised that I can stand in the House of Commons and speak as an openly gay man, and even more surprised that I do so as an official party spokesperson on sexual orientation, gender identity and expression. However, there are also days when I am discouraged about the long distance we still have to go to reach full equality and acceptance, especially for transgender and non-binary Canadians. There are also days when I am hopeful that we will soon see more MPs from my community, including trans and non-binary representatives. We need those diverse voices in the House and young Canadians need to see those role models.

It is time to act and in fact long past the time to bring an end to this harmful practice. As welcome as new laws banning the practice are, new laws alone will not be sufficient to repair the past damage from conversion therapy nor combat the hate that underlies these practices. The government will need to fund capacity building within the SOGIE community so these challenges can be addressed by our community ourselves. Unfortunately, for some from our community it is far too late and they will never be able to be brought back to us.

I look forward to the speedy passage of the bill so we can get on with the important work of healing. I look forward to the day when we can say that all forms of conversion therapy have been banned from Canada and are no longer practised. I look forward to the day we can fully celebrate the full range of sexual and gender diversity in our country.

[Adam Vaughan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Families]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for a very strong and principled speech. I would expect nothing less from him on this topic, in fact on virtually every topic he stands on. He challenges us in his comments. I am not going to ask a question about his comments; they stand for themselves and are well reasoned.

My question for him is simply this. Those of us who want to see the day realized have work to do with him. I would like to know from his perspective what the next steps Parliament, in fact Canada, needs to take to realize that vision and dream of his of full equality and what he challenges us as Parliamentarians to take up in battle with him to ensure that all members of his community enjoy the full rights to which he speaks.

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

Madam Speaker, I know we do not have time enough in response to really answer that question. It is one of the reasons I focused on representation in my speech today. I look forward to the day we have a more representational House on all grounds, including sexual orientation and gender identity and expression.

Conversion therapy is an urgent matter because unfortunately these harms are taking place regularly within our society. I would like to see the bill pass expeditiously and be in force by the end of the year, if we can possibly manage that.

[Scott Aitchison, Conservative, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague for his advocacy, his bravery and his words today. I really do appreciate it.

I wanted to give the member an opportunity to provide a bit more to his comments relating to a charter challenge and ensuring this important legislation, which bans something truly heinous and wrong, is not the subject of a charter challenge in the courts. I felt he had to speak to it too quickly and wanted to give him an opportunity to speak a bit more about the importance of protecting this from a charter challenge.

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

Madam Speaker, unfortunately I believe that no matter what we do the bill will be challenged in court because of the prevalence of homophobia and transphobia. Yes, I agree that it is important we write the best bill we can, but we cannot write a bill that deals with the questions of the whataboutisms to which I referred.

The bill is about ending a harmful practice directed at members of my community. To put it in the most simple terms, the charter is subject to reasonable limits. One of those reasonable limits is the rights of others stop at the harm that is done to me. Therefore, I believe this bill will ultimately survive any charter challenge.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his excellent, very moving and very eloquent speech on this issue.

I have to admit that until just a few weeks ago, I did not even know that conversion therapy was allowed in Canada. I did not think that such a barbaric practice could exist. I am so glad that we are passing legislation today to prohibit it, or at least moving in that direction. I do not even find this to be an especially progressive bill. Today we are simply bringing Canada into the 20th century. Now we need to go even further.

My colleague mentioned something that was very interesting, picking up on something my colleague across the aisle asked about. In New Zealand, 20% of elected representatives are homosexual; in Canada, it is only 2%. Is there something we can do about that from a legislative standpoint? Are there any measures we could bring forward? How did New Zealand achieve that level of representation?

I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on that.

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

Madam Speaker, again, the member's belief that this was not taking place in Canada is representative of the beliefs of many Canadians. I want to thank the conversion therapy survivors, both in Quebec and in English-speaking Canada, who have told their stories and allowed us to realize this actually goes on.

As for New Zealand, about 10% of the new parliament is representative of the SOGIE community. How did they do that? Again, I am always recruiting. What I say is that the best protection for any community in Canadian society and the best way to get representation is to be out and proud of who we are, at work, at home, in all the social groups, in our church, wherever. If we are presenting ourselves as who we really are, that will help Canadians understand that all of us share the same basic humanity.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke for having this voice that needs to be represented. I could not agree more that it needs to be more represented. I welcome all people of diverse backgrounds to engage in politics. It is important that we do this work so we make the space for them.

I wonder if the member could talk a bit more about how secretive this can be. One of the things that concerns me is this terminology of body affirming therapy, which really is a way of hiding the toxic nature. Can we be talking more about how that does not happen to anyone from this community?

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

Madam Speaker, that is an important question. The first thing we need to do is listen to those transgender and non-binary Canadians who have been subjected to what is often labelled with these positive sounding names like “gender affirming” or “transition therapy”, which sound like they will be helpful when they are actually quite harmful. I am hopeful that in committee we will be able to hear from those brave survivors who can help us understand how this takes place.

The question of the shadowy nature is very important. As I said in response to the member for Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry on his comments concerning private conversations. This concerns me. Conversion therapy goes on in the shadows. I worry that if we open the door to protecting so-called private conversations, we are opening the door for this conversion therapy to continue in those shadowy areas.

We will have those discussions at committee, but I would like to see a stronger bill that has a complete ban of conversion therapy in it.

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB]

Madam Speaker, the member touched on part of my question, so I will let him continue. I completely support what the bill says that it would do and the remarks from the minister this morning.

However, I would like the member to comment further on the suggestion by the member for Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry. The member for Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke said that he considers some of the whataboutisms to be red herrings, yet would it not be better to craft a bill that is stronger and better and that would just undercut some of the red-herring arguments that have been made?

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

Madam Speaker, the thing about red herrings is that they take us away from the harm we are trying to address. They bring in lots of theoretical problems and theoretical discussions about rights that are not the real topic of the bill.

I say yes to a strong bill, and yes to a clear bill. However, I am not wanting to qualify this bill in order to respond to the people raising what I believe are somewhat extraneous concerns.

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

Madam Speaker, it has been a pleasure to work with my colleague on a variety of issues. We share a strong opposition to conversion therapy. I have some concerns about the definition of the bill as written. I want to clarify the member's views on this point.

Let us say that an Orthodox rabbi, an imam or a Catholic priest expresses the sincerely held view that sexual activity should be limited to within a heterosexual marriage. I understand many of us in the House might disagree with that view. However, if someone expresses that view, should that person be subject to criminal sanction?

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

Madam Speaker, the hon. member's question brings a very large red herring into the room. Nothing in the bill would criminalize comment on sexual orientation or gender identity by spiritual leaders. When we take those outdated ideas of what it means to be gay or transgender and try to turn them into a so-called therapy that is applied to people, that is what we are criminalizing in the bill. We are not criminalizing people's thoughts or opinions. We are criminalizing a practice that is harmful to Canadians.

[Randeep Sarai, Liberal, Surrey Centre, BC]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my friend from Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne. I also want to thank the member of Parliament for Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, who gave a very passionate speech on this and shared his own life experiences. I really appreciated it and received a lot of insight from that.

It is my pleasure to voice support for Bill C-6, which proposes Criminal Code amendments aimed at ending so-called conversion therapy in Canada. The bill proposes the same reforms as those proposed in former Bill C-8. They underscore the government's continuing commitment to ban an inherently discriminatory practice. Conversion therapy harms the well-being, dignity and equality of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer and two-spirit Canadians by proposing that they can and should change their sexual orientation or gender identity, a fundamental and immutable part of their identity.

Diversity is what makes Canada a great country. Respecting and valuing differences defines us as Canadians. I am proud to support a bill that reflects these fundamental Canadian values. Conversion therapy's origins explain why it is an inherently discriminatory practice. The practice comes from a time when any sexual orientation other than heterosexual, and any gender identity other than cisgender, would have been considered a sickness or a disease that required repairing. It just seems obvious to say that a therapy founded on ignorance and prejudice toward the targeted recipients also harms them.

We need to acknowledge these harms because they are documented by the evidence. Not only does relevant research show that conversion therapy causes significant harm to those subjected to it, it also shows that the practice disproportionately harms children. That is why Bill C-6 proposes comprehensive protections for children.

Bill C-6 would define conversion therapy as any “practice, treatment or service designed to change a person's sexual orientation to heterosexual or gender identity to cisgender, or to repress or reduce non-heterosexual attraction or sexual behaviour”. This means that gender affirming therapies or interventions, including for children whose identity is not congruent with their biological sex, do not constitute conversion therapy. This is primarily because the objective is not to change anything about the person receiving the therapy, but rather to support their identity exploration and development.

To be clear, we want to protect children from illegitimate treatments, not prevent them from accessing treatment that provides them with the support they need. Supporting children who may not conform to heteronormative standards also means protecting them from practices that harm their development and exploration of self. That is precisely what Bill C-6 does.

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

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Before we continue, I would like to inform the House that because of the deferred recorded division, Government Orders will be extended by 83 minutes.

In addition, 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 Edmonton Strathcona, Health; the hon. member for North Island—Powell River, Veterans Affairs.

When the House last took up debate on the question, the hon. member for Surrey Centre had seven minutes remaining in his time for his remarks.

We will go to the hon. member for Surrey Centre.

[Randeep Sarai, Liberal, Surrey Centre, BC]

Mr. Speaker, to resume, Bill C-6 proposes a number of offences. Some protect everyone affected by conversion therapy and others specifically protect children. Everyone would be protected by Bill C-6 offences that propose to criminalize profiting from conversion therapy, as well as advertising and offering to provide it. These offences would reduce the availability of conversion therapy, as well as its discriminatory public messaging. That is intended to prevent Canadians from being subjected to this heinous practice.

Critically, Bill C-6 takes a strong stance on protecting children from conversion therapy. It would criminalize causing minors to undergo conversion therapy and removing minors ordinarily resident in Canada from Canada to undergo conversion therapy abroad.

In short, Bill C-6's protections for children are comprehensive. They amount to a complete criminal law ban. This approach is directly responsive to the lasting damage that conversion therapy is known to cause children. Evidence shows that efforts to change an adolescent's sexual orientation are associated with multiple indicators of poor health and adjustment in young adulthood. Specifically, such attempts to change a fundamental part of who a young person is are associated with elevated young-adult depressive symptoms and suicidal behaviour, and with lower levels of young-adult life satisfaction, social support and socio-economic status.

We know that conversion therapy is associated with multiple domains of functioning that affect self-care, well-being and adjustment. We also know that youth are particularly vulnerable to being coerced or compelled to receive conversion therapy. The American Psychological Association noted, in its 2009 systemic review of peer-reviewed literature on conversion therapy, that coercive intervention and residential centres for youth pose serious concerns “due to their advocacy of treatments that have no scientific basis and [their] potential for harm due to coercion, stigmatization, inappropriateness of treatment level and type, and restriction of liberty.”

The association noted that such interventions:

...may pose serious risk of harm, are potentially in conflict with ethical imperatives to maximize autonomous decision making and client self-determination, and have no documented benefits.

We know that children are often subjected to the most invasive forms of conversion therapy, while at the same time being least likely to have the power or authority to oppose undergoing it. They are also the most vulnerable to conversion therapy harm. The research tells us that those formative years, when a youth develops and explores their identity, may be determinative of their future well-being. Messaging that their identity or sexuality is wrong, in efforts to seek to determine their identity for them, particularly at this early stage in life, may lead to serious psychological harm or even death by suicide.

Bill C-6 responds to this disturbing evidence with its proposed offences that would protect all children under the age of 18 from conversion therapy harms. Bill C-6 sends a clear message by carving out a protected space for children to grow and develop. It tells Canadians the truth: that dictating to children who they should be harms them. It should never be done. Significantly, Bill C-6 also ensures legitimate support for youth who express uncertainty about their sexual orientation or gender identity would not be unintentionally captured by criminal law. This is because legitimate therapies and interventions for children and others, for that matter, involve providing support and acceptance for the person's self-definition without dictating a particular result. Legitimate support is provided in an environment that accepts difference.

The American Psychological Association's 2009 report recommends that adolescents’ exploration of identity should be supported by:

accepting homosexuality and bisexuality as normal and positive variants of human sexual orientation,

accepting and supporting youths as they address the stigma and isolation of being a sexual minority,

using person-centered approaches as youths explore their identities and experience important developmental milestones (e.g., exploring sexual values, dating, and socializing openly),

reducing family and peer rejection and increasing family and peer support.

Perhaps even more helpful than describing legitimate therapies for youth and distinguishing them from the harms of conversion therapy is the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry's statement on conversion therapy, which clarifies that:

Comprehensive assessment and treatment of youth that includes exploration of all aspects of identity, including sexual orientation, gender identity, and/or gender expression is not “conversion therapy”. This applies whether or not there are unwanted sexual attractions and when the gender role consistent with the youth’s assigned sex at birth is non-coercively explored as a means of helping the youth understand their authentic gender identity. In the presence of...distress related to incongruence between gender identity and sex assigned at birth, the standard of care may involve exploration of living in a different gender role.

I wholeheartedly agree, and nothing in Bill C-6 would capture the legitimate therapies and treatment that I have just described. This is because the Bill C-6 definition of conversion therapy only captures practices, treatments or services designed to effect a particular result. Changing a person's sexual orientation to heterosexual, or gender identity to cisgender, does not capture therapies or interventions for other purposes, such as to support a person in their own identity without requiring a particular result.

I am certain that Bill C-6 would make a significant contribution toward creating an environment that fosters the healthy development of all children who may be questioning, developing or exploring their sexual orientation or gender identity.

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

Mr. Speaker, a young woman here in the Lower Mainland, Susan, identified as a boy for as long as she could remember. At age 10, she was raped. These early sexual molestations led her to reject her feminine identity and feel unsafe as a girl. At the age of 16, she was so distraught that she was admitted to Vancouver General Hospital. Later in life friends invited her to church and though the experience was not perfect, she felt embraced and loved. She chose to start seeing a counsellor to help deal with unwanted non-heterosexual behaviour. She looked forward to each counselling session because she felt deeply encouraged by each session. Susan wants the government to know that it must protect the right of Canadians to seek the counselling of their choice.

Would the legislation, with the current broad definition of conversion therapy, put Canadians like Susan at risk of not receiving the counselling they chose?

[Randeep Sarai, Liberal, Surrey Centre, BC]

Mr. Speaker, this does not prohibit counselling, conversations with a spiritual counsellor, spiritual priest or other types of advice. It would particularly protect vulnerable young children from being forced to undergo conversation therapy or being taken abroad to have that done. Scientists, psychiatrists and psychologists have proved this is harmful. It is very dangerous, and it is counterintuitive. In fact, it creates a higher chance of youths committing suicide or having other adverse personal risks in their lives. This would not prohibit, in my understanding, any conversations, counselling or identity exploration for individuals, especially young adolescents.

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the member's speech. I wonder if he would comment on some of the concerns that have been raised both here in debate and outside.

As legislators, we have a responsibility to try and create the best legislation we can. Would he be open to amendment at committee to make this bill stronger, better and improve upon and clarify the definition to ensure that many of the concerns some people have raised about the bill can be very clearly dealt with so we can ensure we meet the objective of the bill, which is to ensure the horrible practice of conversion therapy not legally occur in Canada?

[Randeep Sarai, Liberal, Surrey Centre, BC]

Mr. Speaker, part of our legislative process is to explore, refine and make even better bills that are proposed by government, private members or otherwise. We will always look for positive comments that will help protect our citizens, particularly our youth who are under age and those who are defined under the charter. I am open to hearing anything that will help protect their lives. The intent must be to protect the individuals who the bill was designed to protect to avoid any harm they may face from this very harmful practice of conversion therapy.

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

Mr. Speaker, one of the things I am personally very concerned about is that we ensure different language is not used to hide this very poisonous practice. I think of people calling it body affirming therapy. This is really about protecting young people, protecting people who are transgender or gender non-conforming individuals, supporting them in moving forward, not having this toxic barrier.

Could the member talk a bit about how some of these services are hidden and how unsafe that makes these communities?

[Randeep Sarai, Liberal, Surrey Centre, BC]

Mr. Speaker, when growing up, I still remember my member of Parliament, Svend Robinson. coming out for the first time. I was in grade eight. I remember the impact it had on me and everyone else in his constituency.

I knew him very well. As a young child I helped with his campaigns. It was a big learning experience for me to converse and talk with him to find out why he had not done it before, why he came out later, what the social implications and difficulties were. I remember explaining that to many others, specifically to my community, the South Asian community, which were not familiar with a lot of these principles, thoughts and identities. They did not relate to them at the time.

It is more imperative that we learn about these and protect those who are in that young age, still trying to figure things out and having challenging thoughts. Society has come a long way now. I hope we as a government can help facilitate that and give people a safe environment to do so.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to speak to Bill C-6, which proposes to promote the equality rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer and two-spirit Canadians by taking important steps to end a practice that discriminates against them. Because of the individual harm conversion therapy causes to those subjected to it and the societal harms it causes by propagating the myth that a person can and should change a fundamental part of who they are, their sexual orientation or gender identity, Bill C-6 proposes new criminal offenses that criminalize the practice with a view to ending it.

I am proud that this bill puts Canada at the forefront of the international community in the fight against a destructive practice. There is no doubt that Canada is a leader in criminal law reform in the area of conversion therapy, but we are not alone. In fact, we are part of a growing movement to protect LGBTQ2 communities from a practice that stigmatizes and harms them.

Most countries that have taken steps to combat this practice have not proceeded with criminal law reform. However, there is growing recognition that criminal law is an appropriate tool to fight the harm caused by conversion therapy.

Bill C-6 defines conversion therapy with respect to its purpose. It is any practice, treatment or service designed to change a person's sexual orientation to heterosexual or gender identity to cisgender or to repress or reduce non-heterosexual attraction or sexual behaviour. Such a definition excludes practices, treatments or services designed for other purposes, most notably gender-affirming treatments. Such treatments are designed to provide support in an accepting environment, not to change the person receiving them.

On the basis of this clear definition, Bill C-6 creates the following offences: causing a minor to undergo conversion therapy, removing a minor from Canada with the intention that they undergo conversion therapy, causing a person to undergo conversion therapy against the person’s will, receiving a financial or other material benefit from the provision of conversion therapy, and advertising an offer to provide conversion therapy.

This approach will provide general protection for all persons under the age of 18, whether the conversion therapy is provided in Canada or outside Canada. It would also protect all Canadians by reducing the availability of conversion therapy and discriminatory messaging through proposed offences that would prohibit advertising conversion therapy or financially benefiting from it. This bill does not just protect children.

How does such an approach measure up on a global scale? The only known jurisdiction to have implemented a criminal law response is Malta. In 2016, Malta made it an offence to perform conversion practices on vulnerable persons, defined as a person under the age of 16 years, a person suffering from a mental disorder or a person considered by the court to be at risk. Malta also criminalizes performing involuntary conversion and advertising such practices.

Of course, each country's response has been tailored to its own legal system and reflects the lived realities of its own people.

I am pleased to note that BillC-6 provides protection to all children under 18 years of age, given the evidence indicating that this group is the most adversely impacted. Canada is proposing an added measure that would serve to denounce and reduce the availability of conversion therapy. That is a criminal offence that would prohibit profiting from the practice in any circumstance.

Although it appears that other countries have yet to implement criminal law responses, Canada and Malta may not be alone for long. In March 2018, the European parliament passed a resolution condemning conversion therapy and urging European Union members to ban the practice. In July, the U.K. announced that it would study the issue and then bring forward plans to ban conversion therapy. A bill proposing a to ban performing or advertising conversion therapy is currently before Ireland's parliament.

While countries are looking at how to combat conversion therapy, the United Nations took a firm stance against this practice. This summer, an independent expert on protection against violence and discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity presented a thematic report on conversion therapy practices at the 44th session of the United Nations Human Rights Council.

The report recommends that countries ban practices of conversion therapy from being advertised and carried out in health care, religious, education, community, commercial or any other settings, public or private. It also recommends that countries establish a system of sanctions for non-compliance with the ban on practices of conversion therapy.

Although only one country is known to have adopted a criminal law response, many countries have implemented civil bans in an attempt to reduce the prevalence of conversion therapy, particularly its delivery by health care professionals. Many American states, for example, have enacted legislation that prevents health care professionals from providing conversion therapy to minors, such that professionals who violate this rule are subject to disciplinary measures.

Three Canadian provinces have followed a similar approach. Ontario, Nova Scotia and P.E.I. have passed legislation specifying that conversion therapy is not an insured service and banning health care providers from doing it to minors unless they are capable of consenting and do in fact consent. Also, both Yukon and my home Province of Quebec have recently introduced bills that would affect similar reforms.

To my knowledge, none of Canada's provinces or territories consider conversion therapy to be an insured service, whether that is set out in legislation or not. This practice has been discredited and condemned by the relevant professional associations. However, three provinces have demonstrated leadership in protecting minors by prohibiting health care providers from subjecting them to conversion therapy.

Nova Scotia's approach offers additional protection by prohibiting those in a position of trust or authority over young people from subjecting them to conversion therapy.

These are important elements of the suite of protections that Canada is building to promote the equality of LGBTQ2 Canadians. Bill C-6 builds on these responses and fills gaps. Provincial legislation protects minors in the health care context, but what about other contexts?

We know that conversion therapy is provided by a range of different people, not just health care professionals. In fact, some providers have no training at all. Provincial health care laws cannot apply to lay persons providing conversion therapy. Provincial legislation also only protects minors who are incapable of making their own treatment decisions. What about minors who are capable of making those decisions and what about adults?

These gaps are where Bill C-6 would play a critical role. It would provide protection to children and adults, while building on existing provincial responses. All of these provincial statutes conceptualize the problem in the same way. They define conversion therapy with respect to its objective to change a person's sexual orientation and gender identity, which necessarily excludes all legitimate gender-affirming treatments, practices or services. The various statutes might use slightly different terminology but their respective definitions amount to the same thing.

I am pleased that Bill C-6 is part of a broader Canadian response. Bill C-6 will protect all individuals under the age of 18, whether they have the capacity to consent to treatment or not, regardless of who is providing said treatment.

Together, responses at all levels of government convey the clear message that conversion therapy is wrong. It harms those subjected to it and it harms society by implying that there is something wrong with difference.

As Canadians, we cannot tolerate such messaging. It runs contrary to who we are as a people and as a nation. We are a society that promotes these fundamental values. Bill C-6 reflects who we are as Canadians. Conversion therapy must stop. I urge all members to join me in support of this critical legislation.

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will make it very clear that I am opposed to conversion therapy and its practice and use on minors in Canada. However, I do have some challenges with the bill in its current form, especially as it relates to a child-parent relationship.

The definition of “conversion therapy” in the legislation is that it is a practice to reduce one's sexual behaviour. What protections would this proposed law provide in its current form for parents having a discussion with their child when the child might not be in agreement with the parents?

The bill seems to lack support and protection for parents who have to have those challenging and difficult conversations with their children.

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

Mr. Speaker, this bill would not take away conversations, which I hope families are having when children have questions about their identity and their sexual orientation. I am hoping that they are having those conversations with their parents, and this bill would not take away those conversations.

In fact, regarding the concerns members may have, this is where we have those debates. This is where we bring it to committee, and this is where we have those questions answered, but in no way would this bill take away conversations between family members and support for children who are facing this.

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member on the other side mentioned a few countries, such as Malta, those in the European Union and throughout the United Nations. It seems from what she mentioned that the bill does not agree with other practices or laws out there. Can she be specific on where the disagreement lies between Bill C-6 and other countries?

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

Mr. Speaker, as I said, every country is dealing with its own lived experiences. Here in Canada we have a Canadian-made approach. Bill C-8, which was brought forward before, has now been brought back as Bill C-6, and it is really a Canadian approach.

I know that some people would say that it does not go far enough in terms of protection, especially of those who are vulnerable, such as our children, who are facing incredible discrimination and horrors, which we have heard of in this House and through our history. What may work in Malta, Ireland and the U.K. may not work here, and that is why we made a point of bringing forward legislation that will work here in Canada.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to let members know how excited I am about the bill and how important it is. It has made me think of my former colleague at the University of Winnipeg, Catherine Taylor, who won a precedent-setting ethics committee review to allow kids who are part of the 2SLGBTQQIA community to participate in a research study, which resulted in her receiving death threats.

I reiterate how critical it is to protect kids when we are still evolving as a society to allow people to live who they are. This is a human right, and I want to express my support for Bill C-6.

Members of the Conservative Party have raised concerns about parental control. I would ask the member why is it so critical that kids who perhaps are in families where parents are not supportive of their identity are still provided with the protection they deserve and require to protect this human right.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to touch on exactly that when we talk about families. Many years ago my aunt came out. The family was not sure how to answer that question, because it was unfortunately a very different time. Those conversations now happen very openly.

I am hoping, and I know I am going off target, that even with this pandemic she will be celebrating her nuptials with her long-time partner in a couple of weeks. I am hoping to be there to witness it. She has had a long road, and I am really proud of her.

I am proud of so many Canadians who are who they are, are not afraid to stand up for who they are and know there is nothing wrong with them. They are free to be who they are.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Before we go to resuming debate, I notice the topic before the House this afternoon is, of course, of great interest during questions and comments. I do see a number of members trying to get in, both here in the House and by virtual connection. I am going to do my best to make sure everyone gets a chance to pose a question. We will take them in order and make it as equal as we can across the House and each of the parties. In that sense, it would help if members could make their questions and comments succinct.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Kildonan—St. Paul.

[Raquel Dancho, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I was first elected just over a year ago. When I stepped foot in the House of Commons and sat in one those famous green chairs, I instantly felt the enormous weight of the responsibility to ethically and professionally represent the 85,000 people in my riding of Kildonan—St. Paul.

It is a very diverse riding. There are many seniors and young families, hard-working small business owners, trades professionals and public servants. There are thriving faith communities, which have risen to the enormous challenges of the pandemic and provided much needed to support to those hit hardest by the economic and health challenges. There are also many people from the LGBTQ community and many more parents, friends, sisters and brothers and neighbours to LGBTQ people.

As the member of Parliament to all these wonderful groups and many more, I have the responsibility to defend our country’s freedoms and civil liberties on their behalf and to help create a society that treats all people with dignity, compassion and respect, especially our society’s most vulnerable. That is why the discussion on Bill C-6, an act to amend the Criminal Code concerning conversion therapy and the LGBTQ community is important to me as a parliamentarian and the federal representative of Kildonan—St. Paul.

We know history has not been kind to the LGBTQ community. In Canada, in the 1800s, same-sex relationships between men were punishable by death. In the 1950s and 1960s, there were efforts to eliminate all homosexuals from the public service, the RCMP and the Canadian military. Following the decriminalization of homosexuality in 1969, things began to slowly change for the better for the LGBTQ community. The Canadian pride movement gained traction in the 1970s, but police continued to raid gay bars and arrest and intimidate LGBTQ Canadians.

However, in 1982, Canada patriated the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and section 15 of the charter guaranteed for all Canadians equality before and under the law, and the right to equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination. This section became critical for the LGBTQ community in 1995 when the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that sexual orientation should be read in or applied to section 15 of the charter.

Further, in 1992, former Conservative justice minister Kim Campbell lifted the ban on homosexuals in the military. Canada became one of the first modern countries in the world to do so. In 2005, Canada became the fourth country in the world to officially legalize same-sex marriage nationwide. These rights and many more in Canada were hard fought and won by the LGBTQ community and their allies, so they could live free and be equal under the law.

I was born in 1990, so the rights and acceptance of LGBTQ Canadians has largely been the norm for my entire life, and the 2005 same-sex marriage debate occurred just as I was entering young adulthood. For me, protection of sexual orientation, identity and expression are a given in a society that is as free, diverse and accepting as Canada.

However, we know that even today, LGBTQ Canadians face discrimination and immense hardship. When I was the shadow minister for diversity, inclusion and youth, I had the opportunity to meet with many support groups for the LGBTQ community. They shared with me truly heartbreaking stories, stories of how they provided emergency supports for young people who were, for example, kicked out of their homes for being gay, whose parents had disowned them. I was told it happens more often than one thinks.

They shared how trans kids are so often abused by others, whether at home, walking down the street or at school. They also shared how they helped older adults struggling with coming out because they grew up in a different time, when LGBTQ Canadians had to hide in the closet, so to speak. These were very eye-opening conversations for me of the realities faced by many LGBTQ people in Canada.

A young person who recently transitioned, who I have come to know, shared with me what this bill meant to her. She said, “The hardest thing for young LGBTQ people is believing your family won’t support you or love you for who you are. This bill says it’s wrong to pressure or force someone to be someone they—

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

I will interrupt the hon. member for a moment.

On a point of order, the hon. member for Banff—Airdrie.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I believe the member will be splitting her time with the member for Mégantic—L'Érable.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Is the hon. member for Kildonan—St. Paul wishing to share her time?

[Raquel Dancho, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Yes, Mr. Speaker. My apologies for not saying that at the beginning.

I am going to continue with the quote from my friend, who said, “This bill says it's wrong to pressure or force someone to be someone they are not. It would say that being LGBTQ is just as valid as being straight or cisgender. What we need as young people, is to be loved and supported for who we are.”

Although there are limited statistics and studies on conversion therapy, the data tells us that conversion therapy is happening in Canada, that over 20,000 LGBTQ Canadians have been subjected to it, and a further 11% of trans individuals in Canada are survivors of conversion therapy. We call them survivors because we know that conversion therapy can result in suicide, depression, self-harm, social isolation and many other horrible long-term impacts.

As a result, jurisdictions across Canada began banning this practice a few years ago, whether at the provincial level in the public health system or at the civic level with business licences. Now we are debating legislation to ban it at the federal level by using the Criminal Code.

I am proud to be a member of a party that believes conversion therapy is wrong and should be banned. We believe no Canadian should be forced to change who they are. We know that too many Canadians have been harmed by conversion therapy and have been a target of degrading and dehumanizing practices in efforts to change their sexual orientation against their will.

I was very proud of our Conservative leader when he said:

I am here to secure the rights of every Canadian, including those in the LGBTQ community, and to build an inclusive and prosperous country for all.

Further, he acknowledged the persecution this community continues to face:

For too many LGBTQ Canadians, that persecution may have even involved the threat or use of conversion therapy. To be forced to change who they are is not okay. That is something I hope no Canadian ever endures again....

I agree wholeheartedly with our leader, and that is why I hope Parliament can pass a bill that protects LGBTQ youth and the rights and freedoms of all Canadians.

However, when this bill was introduced in the last session of Parliament this past March, I received many calls, emails and letters from Canadians who were concerned about the lack of clarity in this bill. Parents were concerned that the language used in this bill meant they would be prohibited from speaking to their children about sexuality and gender, from setting house rules about sex and relationships, and from having free and open conversations with their children about sexuality. I assured those concerned that when this bill was first tabled in March, the Liberal government provided clarity in its bill's news release, which clearly stated:

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...support to persons struggling with their sexual orientation, sexual feelings, or gender identity.

Upon hearing this, many of the fears about this bill were assuaged. However, fears and concerns remain that the language from the news release was not included in this bill. These fears are well known by the Liberal government. If the Liberals truly want to build consensus in our diverse Canadian society, I encourage them to listen to these concerns and simply put the wording of their own news release into the legislation, so more Canadians can support this bill.

This is an opportunity for Parliament and all parties to come together and support the rights, freedoms and equality of LGBTQ Canadians, but by ignoring the concerns expressed by some Canadians about this bill, the Liberals, it would seem, have opted to turn this critical issue into a divisive one. The LGBTQ community has for so long been unfairly persecuted, and I do not believe anyone would advocate for the unfair persecution of others and the criminalization of private conversations.

Our leader spoke to this point very well when he said:

People need to be free to talk openly to people they trust in their families or communities. That could be about coming out. That could be about their orientation or their gender identity. It could also be about their own faith or their own personal life journey. They should feel free to talk to others without the fear of a public prosecution.

He rightly pointed out that in this smart phone age, when young people are glued to social media, we cannot criminalize talking. Rather, we must facilitate it.

The issue of conversion therapy and the harm done to LGBTQ Canadians is too important. We need to get this right. It is our legislative duty to do so, which is why we will be proposing reasonable amendments at the justice committee, so the legislation will better protects all Canadians and is clear in its meaning.

In conclusion, I believe conversion therapy should be banned to protect young people who identify as LGBTQ. I also believe the Charter of Rights and Freedoms must be honoured as we move forward and build a more inclusive society.

There are many difficult conversations to be had in my future as a legislator. In fact, very few of the issues debated in the House of Commons seem to be simple or easy. After all, we live in a very diverse, multicultural, pluralistic society with many different world views, and I want my constituents and all Canadians to know they can count on me to stand up for the rights and freedoms of every citizen in this country. I will always lead with the intent to treat others with dignity, compassion and respect.

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

Mr. Speaker, I found the member's intervention interesting. I hope that every member has an understanding that members of the SOGIE community, which stands for sexual orientation and gender identity and expression, do not need to be fixed and that it is impossible to change someone's sexual orientation through counselling or aversion therapy. In fact, any attempt to alter a person's sexual orientation, gender identity or gender expression is extremely harmful to those subjected to it, leading to depression, social isolation, often self harm and even death by suicide. It is important to recognize the part about suicide, because so many people are gone and will never get the chance to find a safe reality.

This is not a question of conversations. This is a question of oppressive counselling that can harm people fundamentally. Could the member explain how she could confuse the two?

[Raquel Dancho, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the member, and if she had listened to my speech, she would have heard how much I wholeheartedly understand the harms of conversion therapy and the detrimental effects it has had on the citizens of Canada over the last 100 years.

What I have heard from my constituents, whom I have a duty to represent in the House of Commons, is concerns that this bill is criminalizing conversations. That is their understanding. If the member was listening, I mentioned that I talked to concerned citizens about the Liberals' news release. They included a section in their news release that was not in the legislation, and with it, many of the fears about criminalizing conversations were assuaged. What I asked for in my speech was further clarity and initiative from the Liberal government to ensure that everyone understands their rights with this bill.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech. During the last session, I had the honour of sitting with her on the Standing Committee on the Status of Women, where we discussed gender equality. Today, we are debating conversion therapy.

Much has been said about the fact that women were hit particularly hard by the pandemic, as was another community. That is, of course, the LGBTQ+ community. Before the pandemic, it was already in great distress, which was exacerbated by the pandemic. The pandemic revealed the true extent of their distress. It is the reason why, with this bill, we are sending a strong message to this community that we stand with it, we support its efforts and we must dispel the myths and prejudices spread by conversion therapy.

[Raquel Dancho, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from the Standing Committee on the Status of Women for her question.

I agree with her that the pandemic has exacerbated many of the societal problems we see. Home is not a safe place for many folks, so having to isolate at home or stay at home because there is no other option further endangers folks who are not in a safe home. That plays right into the issues of conversion therapy and abuse against women and children. If the Liberals had not shut down Parliament for five months and then prorogued it for six weeks, we may have debated this legislation sooner and could have passed it sooner.

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

Mr. Speaker, I concur with my colleague that conversion therapy is definitely an issue we need to deal with.

I have a concern for individuals who I think the member would have a heart for as well. Max said her gender transition was not the solution to her severe depression and did not deal with her negative feelings of self-image and self-identity. Lee said she should not have been encouraged to transition. Elle said that at the time, she did not realize it was possible to not hate her body.

These are just a few of many individuals who are now sharing and talking among themselves. They have transitioned and then detransitioned, though they are not being rude in any way to those who continue to be their friends and have gone through this transition. I am concerned for them. They are sharing in the public square through YouTube, which is what the younger generation does, and they had all transitioned before age 18. I believe they do not feel safe in the circumstances with the definition of conversion therapy in the bill.

[Raquel Dancho, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I understand where my colleague is coming from. A number of individuals have sent me those same YouTube links and information about individuals who have had a very difficult time with their transition, regardless of where they are on the spectrum, whether they are transitioning or detransitioning.

What I have come to learn over the last year I have studied this issue, and formerly as the diversity, inclusion and youth shadow minister, is that there are many heartbreaking stories. That is why it is important that as parliamentarians we protect the support, in the family and in the community, for individuals dealing with these very challenging issues. That is why I think it is important for Parliament to ensure that we are not criminalizing conversations through this legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is with great humility that I decided to speak to Bill C-6 today. For the benefit of anyone watching our proceedings in the House, I would like to remind everyone what Bill C-6, which we have been debating since this morning, is about.

The bill aims to discourage and denounce conversion therapy by criminalizing certain activities related to it, with the further intention of protecting “the human dignity and equality of all Canadians.” It amends the Criminal Code in order, among other things, to prohibit anyone from advertising services related to conversion therapy; forcing persons or causing a child to undergo conversion therapy; removing a child from Canada to undergo conversion therapy abroad; and receiving a material benefit from the provision of conversion therapy.

Why did I decide to speak to this today? It is simple: because I am a father. I have three amazing children, a beautiful family, and I want what is best for their future. I love them for who they are, not who I wish they were. I love them because they are complete, autonomous individuals who make their own choices. Of course, as a father, I can try to influence their choices. I can help them make the right choices and help them get back on track when they make the wrong choices. I can be there for them at all times. However, as a a father, I could never change what they are or who they are. Never, ever would it have occurred to me to pay for them to undergo therapy to change who they are.

I will be clear. A person can make poor choices, but they cannot choose who they are. A person's sexual orientation and gender are not a matter of choice. As I prepared my speech, I read the testimony of young people who had been subjected to conversion therapy. As a father, I never would have subjected my children to such treatment. Those are the values I hold and they are based on the knowledge I have and what I intrinsically believe to be the right thing to do. Many Canadians and Quebeckers share those values.

I wanted to know more about conversion therapy. I found this report from the Ordre des psychologues du Québec, which issued a statement about conversion therapy in 2012. I will read an excerpt so that members and all Quebeckers and Canadians can understand my position.

Research on these issues has shown that it would be unethical to offer homosexuals 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 individual 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 they originally sought psychotherapy.

The report then lists some mental health issues.

Instead, psychotherapy should focus on treating the depression or anxiety, relieving stress, building self-esteem and helping the individual face any challenges they may encounter. In other words, the treatment should help them grow without consideration for their sexual orientation.

This report was from 2012, and I think it is very clear. It is a good introduction and helps set the stage for Bill C-6, which would criminalize the practice of conversion therapy in Canada.

Had the Liberal government not prorogued Parliament, conversion therapy would probably be on the verge of being banned in Canada. The debates would have been held, everyone's views would have been heard, and the majority of the House would have already voted to ban this offensive practice, which, I must humbly admit, I did not even know about before I became a member of Parliament.

I also want to share the position taken by the Government of Quebec, which just announced that it plans to ban conversion therapy in the province. This reflects how the majority of Quebeckers feel about this practice. The practice of conversion therapy will be banned in Quebec.

It will soon be against the law in Quebec to offer a homosexual person heterosexual conversion therapy. Bill 70 will ban anyone from soliciting another, whether free of charge or for payment, to engage in a process of converting their sexual orientation. Once the bill becomes law, an offender could be fined up to $50,000, or even $150,000 in the case of a corporation. That is significant, and it speaks to the importance of this issue.

Across Canada, an estimated 47,000 men have been subjected to conversion therapy. Unfortunately, I did not find any statistics on women, but I am sure that many women have been affected. There are little to no statistics on the number of cases in Quebec, because the phenomenon is under-reported there. That probably explains why I had never heard of conversion therapy before being elected a federal MP.

No Canadian should be forced to change who they are. We know that far too many Canadians have been victims of this practice. As parliamentarians, we have a duty to protect the most vulnerable members of our society. That includes members of the LGBTQ+ community who have been victims of degrading or dehumanizing practices intended to change their sexual orientation against their will.

Everyone deserves to be treated with dignity and respect. We need to do things properly. That is why we are going to propose a reasonable amendment to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights to ensure this bill does a better job of protecting Canadians.

The government could have chosen an approach that would have garnered the support of even more MPs if it had taken into account comments received when the first version of the bill to ban conversion therapy was introduced. Again, for those tuning in, an identical bill, Bill C-8, was introduced during the first session of the 43rd Parliament, but it died on the Order Paper when Parliament was prorogued on August 18, 2020.

I had an opportunity to speak to the House during that session, and I emphasized the fact that, unfortunately, the form and the content were different and needed clarification. Although the Department of Justice's website makes it very clear that private conversations between parents and children are protected, the bill did not. The Department of Justice's website states the following:

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.

However, this explanation is not included in the section of the bill with the definition of conversion therapy. Adding it would provide greater clarity.

We know that the member for Winnipeg North talks a lot, but sometimes he makes good requests. Today, I heard him request, perhaps unusually, that an hon. Bloc Québécois member tell him what amendments would improve Bill C-6 so it would garner greater support from members of the House and Canadians.

I am taking this opportunity to humbly submit this small improvement to Bill C-6. We will propose an amendment that will seek to guarantee that voluntary conversations between these people and their teachers, school counsellors and all those I mentioned will not be criminalized, as indicated on the department's website.

I do not mean to imply that the Liberals or the minister asked that this part of the description of the bill be removed so that they could play petty partisan politics on this important issue. If such is the case, then that is unacceptable. If it was an error, then it can be fixed. I would prefer that it be fixed than to speak about partisanship and petty politics.

However, these words, which come from the government itself and are found on the department's website, open the door to greater support from Canadians for this bill. That is important for our country and for the LGBTQ+ community. The government wants to be honest, open and transparent. Now it has a unique opportunity to show that the Liberals are able to rise above the fray for once and give more Canadians the opportunity to see themselves reflected in Bill C-6, which has the vital objective of putting an end to conversion therapy in our country once and for all.

In closing, I do not identify with an LGBTQ+ group. I cannot claim to understand how a person who has been ostracized, bullied or mocked because of who they are must feel. However, as a father, a Quebecker and a Canadian, I know that it is high time that this country put an end to conversion therapy.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his discussion on this very important issue.

I would like to ask him about the reality that the SOGIE community does not need to be fixed and that it is absolutely impossible to change someone's sexual orientation through any type of therapy. I find it interesting that the Conservative leader has said that the vote on Bill C-6 will be a free vote for his caucus. How is this vote a question of conscience, since it seeks to protect SOGIE individuals from harm?

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

Mr. Speaker, as I said, until I was elected to the House of Commons, I was not even aware conversion therapy existed.

That is why the best thing our leader could do today was tell members of our party that this will well and truly be a free vote. There is something the government can do to get more MPs on board: make sure Bill C-6 reflects what is on the department's website. That is simple, and it would be a non-partisan and objective way to end conversion therapy. I think that is worth remembering. We have an opportunity to work together. The ball is in the Liberals' court. The next move is theirs.

[Tracy Gray, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we know that conversion therapy is wrong and harmful and that we have a responsibility to protect the most vulnerable in our society as parliamentarians. Why does the member think it is important to have some clarification in the definition since the bill would amend the Criminal Code? Could he address why having a reasonable amendment would be an appropriate approach for this legislation?

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

Mr. Speaker, once again, I cannot put myself in the shoes of fathers and young people who have overcome society's reluctance to accept who they are.

The problem is that some parents still need convincing. Conversations still need to happen with some people. Conversations still need to happen in our society. Those conversations need to be protected from criminal prosecution. I think that is how we evolve and how we have evolved. Those conversations—primarily conversations between parents and children—should not be subject to criminal charges someday because a parent wanted to better understand their child or to better understand the situation in general. It is simple, but that clarification must be in the bill to get more support from parents who are concerned they will no longer be able to have those conversations with their children.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Mégantic—L'Érable for his speech. I also appreciate his openness about Bill C-6. I do have a few questions for him.

On June 15, the leader of the Conservative Party, the hon. member for Durham, tweeted, “Let me be clear, conversion therapy has no place in Canada and should be banned”. However, he did not provide a translation for that tweet. This is one of the rare tweets that was not translated. The Conservative Party's translation machine was broken that day. Was it the same people who were in charge of compiling the votes during the Conservative Party leadership race? We have to wonder.

I would like to know what my colleague has to say about that. What does he think of the fact that there was no translation to perhaps avoid reaching a particular audience about a struggle as important as conversion therapy?

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

Mr. Speaker, I will not comment on what my colleague said during the Conservative Party leadership race that allowed us to choose the next Prime Minister of Canada in a rather extraordinary way.

One thing is certain: No matter how Bloc members vote, they will never elect a Prime Minister of Canada. They will never be seated on the side where they can change things. They will never be seated on the side where they can ensure that conversion therapy is banned in Canada. In their case, it is all ambition without the achievement.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by acknowledging that the House sits on the ancestral lands of the Algonquin Anishinabe.

It is a privilege to be here to take part in the second reading debate of Bill C-6, introduced by my colleague, the Minister of Justice, on October 1.

The bill's intent is clear: to ban conversion therapy in Canada.

Conversion therapy is rooted in the wrongful premise that an individual's sexual orientation, gender identity or gender expression can and should be changed to a narrow ideal of what is natural or normal.

Conversion therapy is harmful and degrading, and it has no place in Canada.

Today, I again call on all members of the House to stand in solidarity with LGBTQ2 individuals who are subjected to one of the most heinous and violent attacks on their gender identity, namely, conversion therapy.

It is important we all do everything we can to protect the Canada we know and love. Our communities should be places where everyone is free to be authentically who they are, free from violence or discrimination. On behalf of all those who are being hindered in their ability to truly be themselves, to love who they love and to live fulfilling lives and fully contribute to our society, I ask all members to support the bill and send it to committee.

Too many people in Canada are still the innocent victims of conversion therapy. That is not the Canada we want. We must abolish this practice once and for all and we must do it quickly.

Everyone in the country is standing shoulder to shoulder right now, as we face one of the greatest challenges in our history, the COVID-19 pandemic. As a society, we are blazing new trails. There is no clear path laid out. As a government, we are more determined than ever to build on this collective solidarity to build a more inclusive Canada. The pandemic has opened our eyes. It has revealed unacceptable injustices. It has made the most vulnerable communities even more vulnerable, and it has hit the LGBTQ2 community particularly hard.

The COVID-19 pandemic has shown us that there is still much work to be done to build a truly safe and inclusive Canada. Since March, we have been navigating this crisis together. We all remain cautious and follow the advice of local officials and public health authorities.

Faced with a crisis of this scope, we must rethink our laws and policies and expand our efforts to be inclusive. That is the commitment our government made in re-introducing bill.

The Speech from the Throne emphasizes that the country we are protecting against COVID-19 is a country that is proud of the contribution of its LGBTQ2 communities, an inclusive country. I am sure my colleagues in the House would agree that the best Canada is an inclusive Canada. We must do all we can to achieve equity and inclusion for all Canadians. I am dedicated to this objective and, as members likely know, it forms an important part of the mandate given to me by the Prime Minister.

My parents immigrated to Canada before I was born and worked hard to provide a good life for us. Their belief was that in Canada anything was possible. We all have the possibility of living free from prejudice and discrimination, of expressing our identity and exercising our rights. People deserve the freedom to be who they are, free to love who they love. We all have a role to play so that LGBTQ2 persons feel safe and welcome, to be their authentic selves.

One of our government's roles is to move towards this objective. By re-introducing this bill, we are taking a major step. We are moving towards the elimination of conversion therapy, which is unacceptable in Canadian society today.

The changes to the Criminal Code proposed in Bill C-6 will go a long way to protect the dignity and equality rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer and two-spirit Canadians.

The bill proposes to criminalize certain aspects of conversion therapy. This harmful and outdated practice seeks to change a person's sexual orientation by forcing them towards heterosexuality, to repress or reduce non-heterosexual attraction or sexual behaviour and to change a person's gender identity to conform to their sex at birth.

It is important to note that the proposed changes are not intended to reach far beyond a rational scope. We recognize that it is crucial to protect those who offer affirming and supportive guidance or advice to anyone who has questions or is coming to terms with who they are. In the same spirit of wanting all Canadians to be true to who they are, we also want all Canadians to be free to follow their faith as they interpret it for themselves of their own volition. Our legislation aims to balance this to support and protect the rights of all Canadians.

We need to address the myth that gay, lesbian, queer, trans and non-binary identities are pathologies that can and should be changed. Diverse forms of gender identity, gender expression and sexual orientation are simply part of human diversity. The proposed legislation aligns with our government's commitment to put an end to conversion therapy in Canada by amending the Criminal Code with new penalties for those who conduct the practice, in particular, against minors.

We must adopt legislation that protects the dignity and equality rights of all Canadians, especially those of LGBTQ2 individuals and youth. This legislation will ensure that every Canadian is not afraid to be who they are and to live a full life.

The types of changes we are now proposing to the Criminal Code are also aligned with approaches already implemented elsewhere, and I will offer here just a few examples.

Ontario, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island have enacted legislation specifying that conversion therapy is not an insured health service and have banned health care professionals from providing treatment to minors unless they are capable of consenting. Some Canadian municipalities, such as Vancouver, Calgary, Edmonton, St. Albert and Strathcona County have also banned businesses from providing conversion therapy within their city limits.

Internationally, Malta is the only other country known to have criminalized aspects of conversion therapy, while the United Kingdom and its LGBT action plan has committed to further explore the issue. In the U.S. several states have put in place bans that resemble provincial and municipal bans in Canada.

I would like to thank all those dedicated to building a fairer and safer society. I would like to especially thank my colleagues, our partners and stakeholders, who are working hard to ensure that Bill C-6's amendments to the Criminal Code are adopted.

The amendments that we propose in Canada are yet another step along the way toward a safer and more inclusive country. I am proud of the concrete actions our government has taken to date.

Our Prime Minister apologized to LGBTQ2 people in Canada for the past injustices experienced at the hands of their government. Our government passed legislation, Bill C-16, to protect against discrimination based on gender identity and expression. We transformed the former Status of Women Canada into a full department, the Department of Women and Gender Equality, with an expanded mandate to advance social, political and economic equality with respect to sex, sexual orientation, gender identity and gender expression.

We made a historic investment of $20 million to help build the capacity of Canadian LGBTQ2 organizations to address the unique needs and persistent disparities facing LGBTQ2 communities, and, proudly, my appointment in November by the Prime Minister as Minister of Diversity and Inclusion and Youth, supported by Canadian Heritage, where the LGBTQ secretariat is now housed.

Before the COVID-19 pandemic, I led several round tables with key stakeholders from across the country to discuss LGBTQ2 issues. We spoke primarily about conversion therapy. The Minister of Justice also spoke about this issue with different stakeholders, in particular his provincial and territorial counterparts.

As members can see, the process leading to the proposed change to the Criminal Code to address the harmful practice of conversion therapy has been informed by the lived experiences of LGTBQ2 communities. This work has come from LGBTQ2 communities. It has come from advocacy. It has come from a place of struggle and pain but also of resiliency and strength. Most important, we are indebted to survivors for their bravery in helping and pushing this road forward for us and with us.

As I have mentioned a few times, our government is committed to continuing our conversations and working together until the full implementation of these proposed changes to the Criminal Code.

We also recognize the importance of continuing our work to prevent conversion therapy, to support the communities to make them even stronger and more resilient, and to deconstruct the myths about sexual orientation and gender identity. Together, we must end the stigmatization and discrimination of LGBTQ2 communities.

We are here today as a direct result of the collective strength of survivors and their steadfastness in the face of adversity. We honour them and those who came before them.

In our society, every individual has a unique and important role to play to make Canada inclusive and safe, a Canada where every person can thrive. Not so long ago, solidarity with LGBTQ2 communities was not part of any government agenda. Today, we are trying to promote LGBTQ2 equality, protect the rights of LGBTQ2 individuals and fight discrimination against LGBTQ2 communities. All these commitments require that our elected officials listen to the communities and work tirelessly to create the Canada that we want to leave to future generations.

We cannot change the past, but we can learn from it and do better. Like everyone else, I still have a lot to learn and a lot to do. Like everyone else, I am here to ensure that every human being is respected because I have hope that we will one day live in a country where everyone is treated with dignity and respect, period.

While the past has not always been easy, today is a hopeful day. By acting on historical injustices we are building a better future for all. It is our duty to do everything we can to make a better future for the children in this country. When children arrive in the world they are full of love. They have not learned to hate. A child is taught to hate or discriminate, taught to be ashamed of who they are, and taught there are only certain ways to live. We have to provide a better future, a different future, for the next generation. We know that with these proposed amendments to the Criminal Code we are helping LGBTQ2 people feel safe and enabling them to participate fully in Canadian society.

Our work does not stop there. We are determined to continue the dialogue and work closely with LGBTQ2 communities right across the country.

I have a mandate to consult with LGBTQ2 communities to lay the foundation of an LGBTQ2 action plan that will guide the federal government's work on important issues affecting them. My mandate also involves investing more in LGBTQ2 organizations.

This will offer future opportunities for community-led interventions, because one of my goals is also to build stronger and more resilient LGBTQ2 communities through local, regional and national organizations that can respond to the evolving needs of their communities.

Together, we can help create a country where everyone is free to be who they are, and where human rights are human rights for all. Our Prime Minister often says that, in Canada, diversity is our strength. We are a diverse country made up of people from all types of backgrounds. Our Canada includes everyone, of every colour, of every background, of every identity. LGBTQ2 people exist in our communities. They are our friends, neighbours, colleagues and families. They are people, people we love and cherish.

The proposed amendments help get us once step closer to equality and recognition for LGBTQ2 people. We need to ensure that Canada is a country where everyone, regardless of their sexual orientation, gender identity or gender expression, can live in equality and freedom. Our task is clear. The time to act is now. I urge all members to support this historic ground-breaking legislation as we advance protections for LGBTQ2 communities together.

[James Cumming, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for her speech. I listened to it with great attention to detail. I was struck by how this is such an important piece of legislation to ban such a horrific practice. My question to her is this. Why was this legislation not introduced in the first part of the last Parliament?

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this legislation was created by communities for communities. As the member of Parliament for the riding of Waterloo and as the Minister of Diversity and Inclusion and Youth I speak to many constituents and stakeholders. It is important to act now. This is an opportunity. We can send this legislation to committee so it can be further studied, but what is clear is that conversion therapy does not have a place in Canada. It needs to be banned so people can live their authentic lives. The damage that has been done to certain generations has already happened, but we can act to ensure future generations never have to go through this destructive practice.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend my colleague on her speech.

I want to raise a point. The bill does not ban conversion therapy for consenting adults, but, if I understood correctly, it prohibits deriving a monetary benefit from such therapy. The advertising of such therapy is prohibited.

Will that not make it difficult to enforce the law?

I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on that.

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the bill that we introduced and that is before us today is another step in ensuring that every individual can be their authentic selves. I recognize that members have comments and questions and the committee can consider those and do its work.

In my opinion, it is very important that we, as members, move forward with this bill, which will protect children and young people. The bill also establishes parameters to protect non-consenting adults. However, consenting adults can continue to make their own decisions.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to share a scenario that did take place. A young man applied for a job at a not-for-profit agency that got funding from the federal government. The agency required him to sign a form to say that he was not gay, and this intervention took place at the work location. This took place in the last year.

I would ask the minister: What would the bill do to protect those individuals? What does the government think about the fact that this still takes place? What should happen to those organizations that are receiving federal funds but still have conversion therapy at the workplace?

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is clear that, as a country, we still have a lot of work to do. I offer my commitment to ensure that this work is done, which is why, in my comments, I shared that I have a lot to learn but I also have a lot to do. Today, we have an opportunity to see this legislation advance to committee to see conversion therapy banned in Canada. Will our work end there? No, but what it will do is establish another step.

To the member and the individual he is referring to, I think it is absolutely horrific that took place. I am ashamed that that takes place in our country to this day. The COVID-19 pandemic has actually shone a lot of light on the inequities that exist, and that is exactly why we know that there is systemic discrimination and racism that exists in our country. We will do whatever we can to fight it. I feel that I have the member's support and that he will work alongside us to make that happen.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour of being the member of Parliament for the neighbouring riding to the hon. member's. I am proud that in my riding of Kitchener—Conestoga, indeed, in Waterloo Region and throughout Canada, we are moving forward together. I am also proud to have stood in the Township of Wilmot as we flew the pride flag for the first time. We truly are moving forward.

I have had town halls with local stakeholders and also a town hall with the hon. member discussing LGBTQ+ issues. In her role as minister, she has met with groups throughout Canada. Can she please discuss some of the responses she has received on the bill and the message of inclusion that we are sharing from some of the local groups in our shared region?

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will start by commending the member for Kitchener—Conestoga for doing the important work, as a member of Parliament, of listening and engaging. We have very tough conversations as elected members, and it is important that we not only listen to people we agree with but also to people we can learn from.

The member for Kitchener—Conestoga has ensured that every constituent, every organization within the Waterloo Region has the opportunity to have their voices heard, and I want to commend the leadership of organizations within our communities. They know that they have a full voice at the cabinet table, which is why the appointment as Minister of Diversity and Inclusion and Youth was so exciting.

I can tell the member that we will continue to do this work, because our work is not done yet. This is just another step, and we still hear concerns in this debate. Human rights should be human rights for all, and that is why this proposed legislation should go quickly to committee so that it can be studied and scrutinized. It should then quickly go to the Senate so that it can become law and we can ban conversion therapy once and for all.

[Bob Saroya, Conservative, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I had never heard of conversion therapy until a couple of weeks ago.

Could the member outline some of the witnesses they will be putting before the committee, so we could learn more about the bill?

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I just want to start off by saying that this is the same legislation we had introduced, and that is why this legislation has been viewed by all members of Parliament in this House.

I have heard this comment made a couple of times, that some fellow Canadians do not know about this destructive practice. What we are sharing and what members within the LGBTQ2 community are expressing and sharing is that this destructive practice exists in Canada. It is a clear choice: either it belongs or it does not.

For our government, it is clear. We need to ban conversion therapy. People should be free to be who they are, and to love who they want to love. Committees will do their important work, and I am sure amongst members on the committee, they can determine who will come in as witnesses. I encourage this bill to go to committee so that that work can be done. I hope we have that member's support to see this bill advance swiftly.

[Paul Manly, Green, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Mr. Speaker, indeed, this is a very important subject. Someone's sexual orientation cannot be changed through some conversion process.

The hon. member talked about banning a number of times. The legislation talks about forced conversion therapy being illegal. However, I am wondering about coercion. People who are of age get coerced into doing things by other members of their family, based on their finances or their situation in life. An hon. member talked about someone applying for a job.

I am just wondering about banning this practice outright, not having definitions for forced conversion therapy or figuring out what coercion would look like, just banning it outright.

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

Mr. Speaker, a lot of work has gone into introducing and reintroducing this legislation.

I am really proud of this legislation because we consulted with stakeholders, members of the community, academics, experts and the list goes on, prior to introducing the legislation. We know that conversion therapy has no space in Canada. We also understand that there are people who are trying to understand themselves and having these conversations.

That is why these amendments will not criminalize those who would provide affirming support to persons struggling with their sexual orientation or gender identity, nor would the amendments criminalize private conversations between consenting adults.

What we do know is that there are numerous individuals who have been forced to undergo a therapy that is not a therapy at all. This legislation does protects them so that they can be their authentic selves, and we ensure that we do not have another generation that have lost their ability to be their authentic selves.

[Larry Maguire, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with my colleague from Fundy Royal.

I want to start by saying that there is nothing more important in life than being true to oneself. People only live once and there are no mulligans or do-overs. During one's short time on this earth if one can find love and, in return, be loved back, there are no words to appropriately describe that partnership. Likewise, little is as important to the core of one's being than the ability to express who one truly is.

At this very moment, there are LGBTQ2 Canadians who are listening to us debate this legislation while they are struggling to be who they are. Some are afraid of what others will think or say. Some are concerned people will disown them or think less of them. Some think there is something wrong with them. Here is the thing: There is nothing wrong with them.

Just two weeks ago, it was National Coming Out Day. Every year, people across the country come out and say they are proud of who they are. When many people shared this with their closest family and friends, they did something brave, which was to tell the world who they were. It has not always been that way. During the 19th century, same-sex activity between consenting adults was considered a crime punishable by imprisonment. The mental health professionals of that era deemed homosexuality as a mental illness. If we fast-forward to modern times, it was not too long ago when people had to live in the shadows. Many were targeted. They were discriminated against because of who they dated or fell in love with. Some lost their jobs or were looked over for a promotion.

While we have made tremendous strides toward equality, there is more work to be done. As a Conservative, I have advocated for fundamental freedoms my entire life: freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of conscience, freedom of assembly and association, and that every individual has the right to equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination. Those are not just words. They are in our Charter of Rights.

I support the end goal of the legislation before us today because I am a Conservative. Back in 2016, I voted in favour of Bill C-16, which amended the Canadian Human Rights Act to add gender identity and gender expression to the list of prohibited grounds for discrimination. We know that transgender Canadians face elevated levels of sexual violence. They have been bullied and have had to face discrimination in applying for jobs and securing housing. Many within the transgender community have taken their own lives due to depression and feeling that there was no future.

I believe in the right of individuals to live their lives as they see fit. Liberty as defined by the Oxford Dictionary is:

The state of being free within society from oppressive restrictions imposed by authority on one's way of life, behavior, or political views.

The spirit of liberty must be renewed in all of us, for if we waver or deny our fellow citizens the same freedoms that we so cherish, we will have failed to protect them in their time of need. If we are free to decide where we work, go to school, practice our religion and whom we vote for, then it is within that spirit that people must be free to be who they are. We must protect them from those who wish they were someone else.

In almost every other example of trampling on one's fundamental freedoms, such as forcing someone against their will to change religions or their political allegiances, there would be an uproar and rightfully so.

At its very core, the end goal of this legislation is to defend freedom. As a Conservative, I believe that we as parliamentarians have a role to do just that.

During this debate, and inevitably at the justice committee, we will get into the finer details such as the definition of conversion therapy, as explained in the bill. For those who worry that this legislation would criminalize private conversations, spiritual guidance or infringe on religious liberties, the best approach to resolve those concerns is to specifically carve out what the legislation does not do. When there are concerns about the clarity or implications of a bill, the obvious remedy is to provide them those reassurances.

For example, back in 2016, when we were debating Bill C-14, the government's medical assistance in dying legislation, the phrase “does not” was used six times to provide clarity for what the legislation covered and what it did not cover. If we take that same approach to this legislation, we immediately resolve many questions while improving the bill. In fact, we do not have to look too far as the government's own press release contains some of the language that we could insert into the bill to alleviate concerns.

When the original legislation was tabled on March 9, the Liberals' press release stated that the legislation “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”.

Inserting this clarification in the bill would go a long way to better clarify what would be fenced off from the five new proposed Criminal Code offences. It is my sincere hope that the Minister of Justice reaches out to his fellow MPs and incorporates their views and insights, particularly when he needs the support of opposition parties.

If the Liberal government is determined to ignore the following advice, it was due to its own political calculations, as I believe there is a path to garner even further support from all MPs regardless of their political persuasion. As the leader of the official opposition said, we will put forward amendments. We want the legislation to be crystal clear in its intentions and ensure that it meets its intended goal, which is to ban the practice of forcing individuals and minors to undergo conversion therapy.

Since my good friend from Durham became the leader of the official opposition, I have been impressed with his message and how he is building bridges to those who have not traditionally seen themselves as Conservatives, which includes those in the LGBTQ2 community. I know he is sincere in getting this legislation right. He wants to ensure that no Canadian is ever forced to undergo this dangerous and discredited practice that has already hurt so many.

According to a study released by the Community-Based Research Centre, as many as one in five sexual-minority men has experienced sexual orientation change efforts. The long-lasting harm done to survivors is real and far too many Canadians have taken their lives. Both the Canadian Psychiatric Association and the Canadian Psychological Association oppose any therapy that tries to change a person's sexual orientation. Expert after expert has proven that conversion therapy can lead to depression, anxiety, drug use, homelessness and suicide. No longer will people be forced against their will to change who they are.

When this legislation is referred to the justice committee, I know the members will hear the horror stories from Canadians who have been unjustifiably subjected to this harmful practice. They will hear how close people went to the very edge of committing self-harm.

Let me be clear: For the millions of Canadians who are part of Canada's LGBTQ2 community, being who they are is not a defect, it is not an illness and it is certainly not something that needs to be changed. The expression of their identity and uniqueness is welcomed and celebrated in Brandon—Souris, throughout Manitoba and across Canada. This bill is not merely symbolic. It is an important step forward in protecting and upholding Canadians' charter rights. This is about ensuring that all Canadians can live their lives as they see fit.

It is with that in mind that we must turn our efforts to making sure we get this right. I urge every MP to review the legislation and to put our collective heads together to ensure the definition of conversion therapy as defined in this legislation is succinct and will meet its intended goal for the benefit of all Canadians.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate many of the comments that my colleague from Manitoba has put on the record. In many ways, it is very encouraging when we hear members from all sides of the House get engaged in the debate and talk about just how important the issue and the legislation are. It sends a very encouraging and positive message to those who would be following the debate or those who would be interested in the debate.

I wonder if my colleague could provide further thoughts in regard to the fact that at some point the legislation will pass and be sent to the committee stage, and how important that process will be from his perspective.

[Larry Maguire, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I outlined very clearly in my presentation today what my colleague from Winnipeg North is asking. Just to let us know how important it is, as previous speakers have said, it is important to send it to committee. It is important that the members of the committee look at the definition, get the clear context of it in place during those discussions and perhaps amend it, so that it can be a much more clarified bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, according to the Canadian Psychological Association, 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. It can even lead to suicide.

What does the member have to say about these aspects of psychological distress?

[Larry Maguire, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, certainly the psychology and the psychiatry associations in Canada are concerned about self-harm to these individuals, the mental stress of that, and they do not want to put them through that. We should not have to. They should not be put through that, as I said very clearly in my presentation. That is something we need to look at in making sure there is clarity in the bill when it comes back, if there are amendments to it.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to have this discussion, but it is also important that we focus on the reality that this bill has no effect on the rights of parents to discuss questions of sexual orientation or gender identity with their children. What it does is assure conversion therapy is harmful and cannot be practised in Canada. It acknowledges that the LGBTQ2+ community does not in any way need to be fixed.

I am curious if the member could answer why the Conservative leader has allowed this to be considered a free vote. How is this vote a question of conscience, since it is really about seeking to protect SOGIE individuals from harm?

[Larry Maguire, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would hope that it is a free vote for all parties. People are free to make up their minds, as I said.

This is certainly a situation where I agree with the member regarding the clarity as to what individuals should not have to go through in terms of this bill and conversion therapy. We would hope there is no pressure to be forced into a conversion therapy process when it is a right in our Charter of Rights to have the freedoms that we have.

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

Mr. Speaker, many of us on this side of the House are in agreement that conversion therapy is bad and should be banned, and that we need a proper definition and clear law so that there are no ambiguities. At the same time, it is a bit frustrating because we had a bill proposed in the previous session of which people said we should fix the definition, but then the government chose not to use the opportunity to put forward a clearer definition that clearly excluded, for instance, private conversations.

I was wondering if the member wants to comment on the fact that the government missed an opportunity to send a positive signal about its desire to work together to move this forward by not clarifying the definition in the bill it put forward in this new session.

[Larry Maguire, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is very clear that the government has missed an opportunity. Liberals know from their own dialogue they have had, in the writing subsequent to the bill and in the discussions that took place when they announced it, that there is a clear manner of defining “conversion therapy”. I pointed out the quote in my speech today. The government has clearly missed an opportunity to make real clarification so that there is no ambiguity in this bill when it finally comes back to the House for a final vote.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure and an honour to speak this evening to Bill C-6, an act to amend the Criminal Code, conversion therapy.

I want to thank all those colleagues today who have been participating in the debate. I have been following it with interest and we look forward to continuing debate on the legislation.

By way of a bit of history, in March 2019 the Liberal government rejected a petition for a national ban on conversion therapy. It said at the time that it did not reflect the values of the government or Canadians, but noted that the governance of conversion therapy was largely a provincial and territorial issue. A number of provinces have banned conversion therapy within their jurisdiction and a number of medical professions have raised concerns about its use and effectiveness.

Conversion therapy is wrong and should be banned. No Canadian should be forced to change who her or she is. This is particularly the case when it could be threatened against people against their will or when it is used to denigrate or demean people for who they are.

The Liberal government knows that most Canadians do not want to see the conversion therapy I mentioned, but it also knows that most Canadians do not want conversations between a parent and a child, or a teacher or religious leader and a young person to be criminalized either. In that vein, the government has missed an opportunity to get the bill right. Everyone deserves to be treated with dignity and with respect. All Canadians deserve that we get the bill right and we owe them no less as Parliament.

I want to echo our leader, the member for Durham, in my opposition to conversion therapy. All practices that seek to coerce or forceably change a person's sexual orientation should be banned.

The summary of the legislation is something with which most Canadians would agree. It states that it would create offences for “causing a person to undergo conversion therapy against the person’s will.” This should be banned. A person should not be forced to partake in any activity against his or her will. It further states, “causing a child to undergo conversion therapy”; the offence to remove “a child from Canada with the intention that the child undergo conversion therapy outside Canada”; and also the offence of: “advertising an offer to provide conversion therapy” or to receive a benefit for providing it. Overall the summary makes sense.

We are at second reading of the bill, which is an opportunity to debate the general scope of a bill and focus on the principle within the bill. To be clear, I have significant concerns with the construction of the bill, but there is merit in bringing it to committee and to work in good faith to improve it.

We heard the Minister of Justice today say that he was open to working with all members on improving the bill, and will I take him up on that. It is for that reason I will be supporting the bill at second reading, but I do so with the insistence that any flaws in the bill must be addressed at the justice committee.

We are prepared to work in good faith with government to make a bill that properly captures coercive practices, while ensuring good faith discussions are not criminalized. The bill does need to be amended at committee to ensure that happens.

Much of the concerns that have been raised with my office and perhaps many of my colleagues' offices are from individuals, groups and medical professionals who are concerned with the broad definition of conversion therapy. That is where the government had an opportunity to get things right after it prorogued earlier this year. It could have come back with a more definitive definition of what conversion therapy is.

While most Canadians would define conversion therapy as an inherently coercive or forced practice, the bill does not. Further, it describes conversion therapy as a practice, treatment or service to repress or reduce non-heterosexual attraction or sexual behaviour regardless of what a person's sexual orientation is. Many faiths, whether it is Islam, Christianity or Judaism, disapprove of intercourse before marriage and they teach that. The definition should strictly target coercive practices while not targeting any good faith conversations.

The definition says that it does not apply to a practice, treatment or service related to a person's exploration of his or her identity or to its development. With this, it may be that the government intends to send the signal that genuine conversations to help individuals navigate their sexuality are protected. As I have heard from many organizations, that is not clear. If that was indeed the intention, the government should make that explicit in the bill

Concerns have been raised that the legislation could criminalize therapy that intends to help reduce gender dysphoria. We need to hear from stakeholders at committee to ensure this legislation does not unintentionally impact good faith conversations that medical practitioners would have with their patients to help them navigate issues like this. We need to ensure Canadians, and in particular youth, are given all the support they need.

When the bill was introduced last session, there was language on the Department of Justice website that would address some of the concerns I heard today in debate and some of the concerns I heard from individuals on the legislation. The department website states:

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, 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.

If this is indeed the case, let us work in committee to address these concerns being raised and incorporate the very language that the Minister of Justice and the Department of Justice website has used into the bill to clarify for Canadians that this would not impact on good faith conversations.

I want to be very clear for my Liberal colleagues across the aisle. We have an opportunity here to have a bill that would address the concerns being raised and gain the support of a wider range of Canadians. I have heard from many who are concerned with the construct of the bill, but note they do support a ban on conversion therapy.

For example, the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada wrote to the minister earlier this month on this very bill. They wrote, “Many people who have experienced conversion therapy describe despair and suicidal ideation as a consequence. We recognize that initiatives to ban conversion therapy arise from a desire to protect Canadians from such damaging effects.” The letter continues with “Coercive and involuntary efforts to change sexual orientation have no place within our communities.”

My point in raising the letter is that there is a broad consensus in the House that conversion therapy should be banned, but there is also a need to ensure we get the bill right. There is a broad consensus among many stakeholder groups across the country that we need to get the bill right.

We already know that mental health services across the country are often lacking. This means kids, but also grown adults, are often not able to receive the mental health support they need. In a one-year period, one in five people in Canada will experience a problem with mental health or mental illness. This is especially the case for youth who are struggling with their own development and seeking guidance on how to be comfortable with themselves and grow into adults. It is important that frank conversations are protected between those seeking help and those who wish to help youth navigate difficult or confusing time periods in their life.

I want to reiterate my previous point. We have an opportunity here to improve the bill to capture a ban on coercive practices that seek to forcibly change a person's sexual orientation. Some concerns have been raised about how the bill has been crafted, particularly around the definition and it targeting good faith conversations with young people and those trying to support them. To ensure the bill is as effective as possible when we pass it into law, the government needs to be willing to listen to stakeholders who raise concerns about the legislation and work with them in the committee process to improve the bill.

I will use the minister's language from earlier today where he indicated he was open to good faith improvements to the bill. We in the Conservative Party are willing to work with the government to help address the concerns that have been raised.

[Adam Vaughan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Families]

Mr. Speaker, concern was raised that the bill had not been perfected in its representation, but rather was being left to committee to work on it. I am curious. When he said that work needed to be done, who does he think needs to be called to that committee to help guide parliamentarians as we go forward? What voices does he believe are missing from this debate right now that would make this a stronger bill if we listened to them?

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Mr. Speaker, a good starting point would be to look at the words of the minister straight from the justice department website. The minister has said that the conversations of those who work with young people, teachers, school counsellors, pastoral counsellors, faith leaders, doctors, mental health professionals, friends and family members, would not be impacted by the bill. However, the bill does not say that. A good starting point would be to hear from a large variety of individuals who are impacted, those who support the coming into force of the legislation and those who support ending conversion therapy and want to ensure we get the legislation right.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we all know that religious groups and religious pressure are behind these conversion therapy practices. There is a myth that homosexuality is a sickness and that it leads straight to hell.

The Pope himself has recognized same-sex civil unions, so I would like to hear about why we must move faster to eradicate these prejudices. I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on this, because prejudice against the LGBTQ+ community is no longer acceptable.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Mr. Speaker, this is an opportunity. There is support for the idea of banning conversion therapy even among faith communities, but there is also a need for the government to get the legislation right so we do not ban conversations where someone is seeking support, whether from school counsellors, teachers, pastoral counsellors, faith leaders, as the minister said. This is not included in the bill. The concern we and many have raised is with respect to the definition of “conversion therapy”. There has not been a Criminal Code definition of “conversion therapy” and the government's first try at a definition is one that could very well capture things we do not wish to be captured as a Parliament.

[Ron Liepert, Conservative, Calgary Signal Hill, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to my colleague's remarks. I also listened very attentively earlier this afternoon to the member for Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, who gave a very impassioned speech to the House. I know some of the things he mentioned are exactly what the current speaker has talked about. I would like to get an opinion from the member as to whether he feels that by not including some of these conditions in the legislation, it will lead to court challenges that could work against what we are trying to do here and delay this taking effect.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Mr. Speaker, any legislation that amends the Criminal Code will ultimately be challenged in the courts. It is our job to write these laws. That is why it is incumbent upon parliamentarians to take into account the rights of all Canadians and ensure that legislation does what we intend it to do.

If we want to ban conversion therapy, it is important our legislation does that and does not cast a net so wide that it takes into account things that we do not intend it to. The minister has said that it is not his intent to cast the net that wide, but the issue is the language in the legislation, and that is ultimately what is before the courts when they consider a criminal case.

[Adam Vaughan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Families]

Mr. Speaker, before I begin, for my first time rising in the House since we broke from normal proceedings way back when, I would like to thank the staff at the centre table, the support staff in the halls and throughout the centre block, for not only pulling off such an extraordinary presentation of democracy but also for their service to all of us in Parliament, and in particular the pages. As a former page myself, the pages might be here for the shortest time, but their contribution is never not noted. We are glad to have them here and hope they stay safe with all Canadians as we begin this parliamentary speech.

I rise today as the Parliamentary Secretary of Families, Children and Social Development. That is a great title to speak to this issue on because how we deal with children and families, and how we develop our society, are at the heart of what we are debating today as we seek to realize and protect the rights of our neighbours, friends and family: all of us who call Canada home. There have been some very emotional presentations from members today. As society has become more comfortable discussing these issues and embracing these people, not “othering” them, their stories and their backgrounds can be told more easily, and the emotional bridges and journeys that some of us have had to take become much more profound. I want to thank the members who have stood today and shared stories of themselves, their families and their communities. They make us all stronger parliamentarians when they come here with that much personal experience.

This issue has changed so much, in just my lifetime. We look at the letters that are often attached to this debate: LGBTQ2+. I can remember when there was only one initial, and I remember when each initial was added to that list and what it meant for different communities at different times, in the city and community I represent and the family I come from. I remember, very distinctly, the bath house raids in Toronto. I remember very distinctly, because one of the people who was caught in that process, who had to be smuggled out the back door because of political implications, was a friend of the family. I remember a staff member at Legal Aid Ontario, where my mother worked, whose life was almost destroyed by that night. I remember how it gave rise to the Pride marches, and I remember how it gave rise to what was then called gay liberation.

I apologize for interrupting, but I will be sharing my time with the member for Milton in this speech.

I remember when the gay liberation movement had the word lesbian attached to it, and how trans people, bi people and all their struggles led to a stronger, better and more compassionate understanding of some of the challenges that people in our society faced. I also remember, shortly after the bath house raids, the rise of AIDS and HIV, and I remember how the stigma prevented people from getting treatment and prevented them from being comforted by family members and loved ones.

Every time we have had to achieve a transformational change in the civil rights and human rights of members of the community has been a really difficult time for politicians. I remember, for example, a debate at Queen's Park when the NDP government of the day tried to bring forth a bill that would have simply provided family benefits to families that happened to be configured differently from what was perceived to be the norm. I remember the free vote that broke into a riot at Queen's Park, because I was covering it as a reporter. I remember the pain in people's eyes because they knew, coming out of the AIDS epidemic, that the failure to recognize people as full families meant that they could not be there at the end of life with people who loved them, cared for them and were quite often the only ones providing them with the medicine and medical care they needed through their struggle with AIDS and HIV.

We have come a long way as a society by opening our hearts and our minds simultaneously to these issues. Today's debate is profoundly important because society is starting to understand that the sooner we deliver people their human rights, recognize their civil rights and deliver the understanding that we see a person's humanity, the quicker that person starts to come to terms and become a citizen like everyone else, contribute like everyone else but also get loved like everyone else. That is what is at the heart of this debate today. I recognize that when we start trying to move the emotional into the legal and trying to bring social practice into law and statute, there are difficulties.

Some of the opposition members are starting to talk about things they want to explore in committee and changes they think might be important. If those things are brought forward in the spirit of recognizing and deepening our common human rights and our common civility, then nothing but good will come from those debates.

I look forward to the committee taking hold of this issue and trying to find a way to improve this bill. No piece of legislation is ever presented in perfection. They are never passed in perfection. That does not mean we should not be trying. On this issue, it could not be more important.

I was a reporter here when the same-sex marriage debate was kicking up. I remember being a reporter at the City of Toronto, when the two Michaels came forward and decided they were going to present themselves to city hall and dare the city not to marry them. I remember being in a press conference. The city manager was there, and the politicians were there, including Kyle Rae, one of the first elected politicians in Canada to come from the gay community.

I remember asking the city clerk, “Why do you not just marry them, and let someone else deny them their human rights?” There was a brief moment when I thought the city clerk might actually just rip up the letter of disqualification right there on the spot. We all sort of stopped and hoped for it.

I was lucky enough to be invited to the wedding reception of the two Michaels. I was lucky enough to be a city councillor when Toronto became the first place in this country, and the first place on this continent, to open the doors of the wedding chapel to everybody. We would get called in the middle of a debate in the council chamber because the wedding chapel was just across the way. We would get called in and have to go to witness people's marriages.

I have to say, it only took one or two marriage ceremonies, even for those of us who were convinced in our hearts it was the right and proper thing to do, to understand that just the act of seeing that happen was transformational. We knew, from the minute we saw an old uncle or a questioning sister or a troubled sibling, that when they saw the love that was being expressed and the humanity that was being embraced, they would see this was actually a celebration of life, and not a denial of someone else's belief structure. It was actually just people expressing love.

We saw that over and over again, and we knew from that moment on society would very quickly embrace it. People have. They embrace it because as soon they witness it and they see the humanity we are trying to stand up for, protect and defend today, they are forever changed by the glory of what happens when love, and who people are, are simply honoured.

This is a profound act. This is a really important piece of legislation we are debating here today. What it does, most importantly for me as the parliamentary secretary for families, children and social development, is it goes to the heart of something which is incredibly important in this country. We know from studying homelessness that if someone is homeless at 16, the chances of them remaining and becoming chronically homeless is in the range of 80% to 90%.

Let us think about that. For someone on the streets at age 16, the chances they will be on the street at 28 or 35 go off the chart. We also know that young people who come to terms with their sexuality and are kicked out of their homes end up on the street faster than any other child in this country. When our government commits to ending homelessness, this is part of that agenda. Make no mistake about that.

I will leave the House with one last thought. Two things happened when I was a member of Parliament on a pride march. I met a young kid from North Bay, who had left North Bay because he was afraid that his sexuality would mean he could never teach in that school system. It does not matter which school system it was, but he left North Bay because he was afraid he would never be allowed to teach up there. He was just not sure the level of tolerance of his sexuality was there to give him a place where he would have a career. He came to Toronto, and he went to the pride march. I was on a truck with him, and we had not quite turned from Bloor onto Yonge. I asked, “Are you ready?” He asked, “Why?”

We turned the corner onto Yonge Street in pride, and there were a million people in front of us celebrating people for who they are. I have never seen somebody cry so hard, so fast and so joyfully in my life. The reason I knew turning that corner was going to be so important was because the year before I had done the same thing with my sister. When that happens in a family, when love does not skip a beat, but just gets deeper, and people find new ways to love and new people in the family to love with, it changes a person forever.

This legislation is going to protect people to find that experience. It is going to protect the opportunity for young people in this country to be who they are, to love who they need to love, to love themselves and to be loved by not just their families but by the whole country and this Parliament.

Let us pass this legislation. Let us take it to committee and make it better. Let us make sure the Senate gets it passed. Let us make sure that children in this land know they are free to love, free to be loved and can love freely. If we can make this country the safest place in the world to fall in love, we will have done good work as parliamentarians.

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

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

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

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

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

We will have to leave it there. There are other members wishing to pose questions.

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

[Adam Vaughan, Liberal, Spadina—Fort York, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that is a horrible story. It points to the critical importance that we all play a role in eliminating sexual and gender-based violence in this country.

However, in the way it was presented to me, and maybe it was because the question was not finished, it does not tell me why we should not be protecting children seeking love to be loved. What it tells me is that children need to be protected from violence and they need to be protected from becoming victimized by systems and societies. Children need to be protected. This bill would not stop difficult conversations in families, in church basements, in schools and in the hallways of Parliament, but it would stop the systematic and engineered cruelty that conversion therapy is. That is what the bill seeks to deal with.

The horrors that the member spoke about need to be spoken to in other legislation, but voting for or against this bill will not stop horrific acts of violence from traumatizing people and creating confusion in their lives going forward.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.

We agree with the bill, and we will vote in favour of it. The bill needs to move forward, and it is long overdue.

If we start from the premise that conversion therapy is not only dangerous, but insulting, since a person is being told that they need to be healed, why not follow that logic and ban conversion therapy altogether? Right now the door is being left open a little bit by saying that we should have conversations.

Why are the Liberals not going all the way?

[Adam Vaughan, Liberal, Spadina—Fort York, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that is one of several ways of asking a question that has been asked many times here today.

The space between a private conversation and where that trips into a form of conversion therapy is a very difficult line to draw in legislation. Part of the way in which our laws work in a democratic parliamentary society is that those definitions evolve over time, to a degree. Fundamentally, what we are doing is taking away the institutional structures, the political fight and the legal ability to force people into situations where they are no longer agents of their own lives.

The issue that the member raised is a good one, as to how to stop private conversations from being damaging conversations. I am not sure we can do that with the law. I think if there was a way to do that, we would all be writing those laws and a whole—

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

We are going to take one more short question and short response.

The hon. member for Yukon.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Economic Development and Official Languages (Canadian Northern Economic Development Agency)]

Mr. Speaker, I ask people watching what they would do if someone asked them to change their sexual orientation or gender identity, or, even worse, tried to force them to do it as a kid. They should think about how they would feel.

I am moved and gratified that we are criminalizing the horrendous act of trying to change who someone is. I congratulate the high school students at Porter Creek Secondary School and others who brought this up. The Yukon government, two weeks ago, passed second reading of a bill against conversion therapy. Conversion therapy leads to a lack of self-esteem, increased anxiety and depression, and even suicide, so I thank MPs from all parties who support making five new criminal offences against conversion therapy.

[Adam Vaughan, Liberal, Spadina—Fort York, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I know the member for Yukon and the work he has done on a whole series of children's rights issues.

The last two initials that have been added to the long string of letters that we now identify as communities are “2S”, or two-spirited. One of the great things about being a parliamentarian is how much detail we get to learn about other parts of the country and other people who make up this great country. The indigenous community, with the concept of two-spirited people, has really raised the bar. The notion that being different makes someone special is always a little awkward, but it gives a person something else. The sense that a person has two spirits and is therefore regarded within a community as exceptionally spiritual really turns this issue on its head.

When we celebrate our children for who they are, they do better, and we do better as a country when we celebrate that love, so let us do this and and get the bill passed.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to start by acknowledging that I am joining members from the traditional and ancestral territory of the Mississaugas of the Credit First Nation here in Milton.

It is my honour to join the House from my office to discuss amendments to the Criminal Code that would move us one step closer to banning the horrific practice of conversion therapy. While it is daunting to follow my colleague, the parliamentary secretary with the same initials as me, I want to say that I was moved by the idea of making Canada the safest country in the world in which to fall in love.

For far too long, harmful attitudes, stigma and outright bigotry and discrimination have negatively impacted the health and well-being of LGBTQ2+ people throughout the country. That is why this is such an important bill. Conversion therapy is rooted in the wrongful premise that an individual's sexual orientation and gender identity or gender expression can or should be changed. By moving forward with stopping this harmful practice, we are sending an important message. The message is that our gender identities, our gender expressions and our sexual orientations are an essential part of who we are. Nobody should be made to feel less than or as though they should change. It is not people who need to change; it is attitudes.

LGBTQ2+ persons should be understood, appreciated and celebrated. Only then can we have a truly inclusive society. This is true of everyone, whether they happen to be gay, straight, bisexual, cisgender or transgender. However, queer Canadians are the ones who are currently facing the consequences of constantly being told that only heterosexual and cisgender sexual orientations and gender identities and expressions are okay. LGBTQ2+ Canadians should never feel coerced or forced to change into people they are not.

Conversion therapy is known to cause pain, suffering and harm, and it is terrible and wrong. Canadian society needs to include, embrace and celebrate everyone as they are. This includes the full breadth of sexual orientations, gender identities and gender expressions. Regardless of sexual orientation, gender identity and gender expression, who we are is not only valid but respected and valued.

The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted how much work needs to be done to build a truly safe and inclusive Canada. In fact, the evidence is all there. It was there before the pandemic. Discrimination is real in Canada, and harmful attitudes and beliefs are fuelling that discrimination.

As recently as 2014, Statistics Canada found that 31% of lesbian and gay individuals and 39% of bisexual individuals reported experiencing discrimination in the previous five years. This is simply not acceptable. Consider that in Ontario alone, my home province, an ongoing study of transgender people found that 50% of transgender youth lived in low-income neighbourhoods compared with 37% of the general population. In addition, LGBTQ2+ youth are still at particular risk of experiencing homelessness. A national youth homelessness study found that almost 30% of homeless youth are part of the LGBTQ2+ community. A 2017 study found that 75% of transgender youth in Canada aged 14 to 18 reported self-harm in the previous year compared with less than 20% of cisgender youth of the same age.

All of this is totally unacceptable and only underscores the very basic fact that stigma and discrimination are very real and continue to exist. These harmful myths, attitudes and beliefs about the LGBTQ2+ community are persisting, and they need to be stopped.

However, there is some hope and progress. In 1995, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that individuals are protected against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation through the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In 2017, the Canadian Human Rights Act added gender identity and gender expression as prohibited grounds for discrimination. Of course, more needs to be done, but these and other measures have provided incremental progress.

Today's proposed amendments to the Criminal Code regarding conversion therapy are part of that progress. Legislative measures such as these signal a broader acknowledgement that LGBTQ2+ people are valued and appreciated and they must be embraced just as they are. There is no need for the queer community to become heterosexual or cisgender. Rather, the LGBTQ2+ community must be afforded the same opportunity as everyone to be treated with full dignity, which is the same dignity afforded to other Canadians.

Much progress is possible when hearts and minds move forward in their understanding and appreciation of LGBTQ2+ people.

For instance, among transgender youth, suicide attempts are reduced by 93% in cases where parents strongly support their children's gender identity and gender expression. I am going to say that again: Suicide attempts are reduced by 93% in cases of youth with supportive parents. That is all it takes. It is incredibly powerful. If supportive parents can have such a meaningful impact, we should be encouraging more education and deeper, more compassionate understanding so that LGBTQ2+ Canadians, particularly queer youth, can fully participate and contribute without living in fear of having to face attempts to change who they are.

PFLAG Canada is a national charitable organization founded by parents who wish to help themselves and their family members understand and accept their LGBTQ2+ children. Recently, in partnership with Arts Milton and PFLAG Halton, I supported a public art project here in Milton. It is on the side of my community office, just downstairs. Small acts of love go a long way. I want to thank the artist, JR Marr, for telling their story through art and spreading that love.

There is hope in public support. According to the Fondation Émergence, 74% of Canadians say that their knowledge of issues faced by transgender people has increased in the last five years, while 72% of Canadians believe that transgender people are being discriminated against by their employers. Canadians are becoming more aware and more alive to these very real issues and that there are, indeed, real impacts to the stigma and discrimination that LGBTQ2+ people and communities face.

Conversion therapy and efforts to force LGBTQ2+ individuals to change into people they are not reflect ongoing and long-standing views that only heterosexual and cisgender identities are valued, and that only heterosexual and cisgender identities should be valued. This is a myth that must be abolished. Sexual diversity is part of the human experience. Efforts to change and to limit that diversity cause harm, and that harm needs to end. Stopping this harm will protect LGBTQ2+ people throughout Canada, but putting an end to this harm will also benefit Canada overall. We know that there is strength in diversity. There is also strength in inclusion.

When we can all be fully included in Canadian society, when we can all fully participate, and when we can all be fully appreciated and celebrated as we are and as we were meant to be, everyone wins. That is a society that is not only surviving, but a society that is thriving.

I want to close by acknowledging again how meaningful and moving the previous speaker's mention was of creating the country that is the safest one in the world in which to fall in love.

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

Mr. Speaker, of course, Conservatives are supportive of efforts to ban conversion therapy. We are also asking questions about the definition and suggesting that there could be improvements to fix the definition to ensure broader consensus.

In particular, I want to ask the member about one aspect of the definition. I think that most people would understand conversion therapy as involving an attempt to change a person's sexual orientation. The definition, though, also includes efforts to reduce sexual attraction or behaviour.

I can imagine many cases in which individuals might see a counsellor or seek advice from mentors in an effort to reduce or, in some way, change the way they are acting sexually. They might find that their sexual behaviour is getting them into problems in their lives, and they want to seek counselling in order to reduce sexual attraction or behaviour. Language around sexual attraction or behaviour, to me, is very distinct from the kind of conversion that we typically think of as conversion therapy.

Would the member agree that one way to fix this definition is to focus only on the changing of orientation aspect, as opposed to the kind of counselling someone might seek as support for changing or mainly reducing their sexual behaviour?

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Milton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I think this will become better legislation as we discuss these issues more thoroughly. I am thinking back to Catholic school and the earliest experience that I had when I was a young boy talking to the chaplain about sexuality. I recall him saying that we love the person, but we hate the act. Then I came to know Jesus Christ through bible study and I never really imagined Jesus Christ being capable of hating somebody or an act that involved love. As we seek to improve upon this, the question from the hon. member was about behaviour. This is about identity. We are focusing on identity and changing people, which is rooted in—

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

We have to get on to the next question.

Questions and comments, the hon member for La Pointe-de-l'Île.

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

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague for his speech.

We in the Bloc Québécois agree with the essence of the bill. However, I would like to know my colleague's opinion on the provisions of the bill making it illegal to promote conversion therapy and to receive money for providing such therapy, except in the case of consenting adults. Does this mean that therapists could be paid to provide conversion therapy to a consenting adult?

If so, I can hardly see how the legislation will apply. How can we better define this?

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Milton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

It could be said the bill does not go far enough to make conversion therapy illegal and criminal. I am not a lawyer, but I know it is very difficult to tell consulting adults exactly what they can do with their time and their money. My hope through the bill is that we broaden the definition of what accepted love is in Canada and that we change attitudes. As I said in my speech, it is not people who need changing, it is that conversion therapy is based on two false premises: one that people can change and two, that people should change. Both are false and perhaps this is an iterative approach to making it completely illegal, but that is what committee is for and I look forward to discussing it further there.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, we know conversion therapy does real damage. I am wondering why the Liberal government is choosing not to outlaw it outright. I say that because in the sixties there were behavioural experiments where they found long-term or permanent damage done to people participating in these experiments. We know that is true for conversion therapy, so why is the government choosing not to ban conversion therapy outright?

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Milton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am thankful to expand on the previous member's question. I am not a lawyer. I am not an expert on these types of legal matters, but I know it is very difficult to put into law restrictions on what consenting adults can do with their time and their money. I am with the member. I would love to see conversion therapy be illegal, but I also know that people have the right to explore these types of things. Sadly, the member and I can agree that they are wrong, but there are also rights that we need to protect, I suppose. I look forward to discussing this further.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The dedication reads:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I can appreciate the leader of the Conservative Party has opted to have this as a free vote within the Conservative Party. Listening to the member opposite, particularly as he was winding up his comments, makes it fairly clear that he is going to be voting against the legislation. If I am wrong in my interpretation, I would ask him to let me know.

I want to get his thoughts with respect to this. This is not a bill that appeared out of nowhere. This is a bill, as the Minister of Diversity and other ministers have made reference to, that has engaged Canadians in a very real and tangible way. I wonder if he might be discarding that very important aspect of the legislation by just throwing it out.

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

Mr. Speaker, what I would like to do is throw out the bathwater and keep the baby. I would like to be able to confidently vote for this bill at third reading. I hope to be able to have the opportunity to vote for an improved, clear bill that bans conversion therapy at third reading.

When it comes to second reading, I am conflicted between an agreement with the principle of banning conversion therapy and significant concerns about the implications of this bill unamended. I recognize the government had an opportunity to listen to the concerns that were raised and fix the problems, fix the definition, in between the first and second session of Parliament. The fact that it did not take that opportunity raises some significant concerns about whether it is actually proceeding in good faith to put forward a bill that bans conversion therapy and only conversion therapy.

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am a little surprised at how concerned my colleague from Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan is about conversations that a father might have with his son about his sexual orientation. I do not think that has anything to do with conversion therapy, any more than a conversation about a bank robbery has anything to do with a plot to rob a bank.

That said, I am much more concerned about another aspect of the issue. People are very interested in conversion therapy, but they are also concerned because of the connection with the somewhat extreme ideas espoused by certain religious communities.

During the latest Conservative Party leadership race, my colleague from Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan said that he was working a lot with people who were privately and discreetly looking for support from evangelical churches in Quebec. Is my colleague not concerned that religious communities' influence on his party could interfere with a healthy debate on this important issue?

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

Mr. Speaker, I will say to the Bloc that the Conservatives are here to represent all Canadians and all Quebeckers, including Quebeckers who that party will not represent, such as Muslim or Sikh Quebeckers who are concerned with restrictions on their ability to practise their faith, and people from other communities.

The Conservatives believe in a pluralism that respects diversity and lets people have different perspectives and participate in the public square together. I completely reject the insinuation of his question that people who practise a faith somehow should be excluded from public conversation, that only those who do not have a faith perspective are the ones who are allowed to participate in the public square.

Let me respond to the first part of his question, which I think was in some ways more reasonable. He said we are talking about two completely different things, conversations and conversion therapy. I agree they are two different things, but the problem is the definition, as written, brings private conversations that people might have about issues of sexuality into the definition of “conversion therapy”. The member is right that we should not really be talking about private conversations in the context of this debate, except there is a flawed definition that brings those things in, so we need to fix the definition.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for his comments, although I am quite confused. Nowhere in this bill does it mention anything about limiting the ability of parents to have discussions with their children. We are talking about a barbaric practice that violates human rights and dignity, something he said was not clearly defined, but it is under our charter, so it also violates charter rights.

Conversion therapy has been deemed, through much research, to cause irreparable damage to some people's lives. It is something that, when they do different practices in psychology, they eliminate because they know it has a long-term, severe psychological and emotional impact. The member gave us a lot of prose and stories. I am wondering if he has done any research with respect to his assertion on the long-term psychological impacts conversion has on individuals and why, knowing that, he supports that—

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

We will have to leave it there. We still have a few more questions.

The hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan.

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

Mr. Speaker, the best response is just to restate what my argument was, which is I am opposed to conversion therapy. I agree that conversion therapy should be banned and it needs to be properly defined.

The definition, as written, is what we are debating. We are debating a bill that has a definition in it and that is the definition that will become the law if the bill is passed unamended. It is not the common sense definition of what conversion therapy is. It is the text of the definition. The text of the definition includes any effort, could be a private conversation, any practice, treatment or service, and practice is not defined in the legislation, which involves reducing or repressing non-heterosexual attraction or sexual behaviour.

I used some examples in my speech of cases in which there might be a private conversation that aims at supporting someone in his or her efforts to reduce or modify the individual's sexual behaviour. That falls into the definition, unfortunately, as it is written. It is a fixable problem. I hope we can get to a bill on which we can all agree.

It is very important to highlight that fixable problem. What becomes the law is the text of the bill, not the intentions of the speakers in the House.

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

Mr. Speaker, at the conclusion of the hon. member's speech, he talked about how it should be individuals, not paternalistic governments, who make their own decisions in life.

Would he elaborate on how the bill would impact people's ability to make their own decisions within their own life?

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

Mr. Speaker, all of us have different aspects of our identity that we seek to reconcile. People choose to reconcile those things in different ways.

I gave the example of a well-known Catholic priest and writer, Henri Nouwen, who identified a same-sex attraction and who sought to live out his vows of celibacy. That was a personal choice that reflected, for him, the way in which he wished to construct his identity.

I would not say for a second that anyone should be forced to make that choice, but people should be allowed to make a choice and should seek support in doing that. Others who wish to respond to those attractions differently should be absolutely free to do so, and to be loved and treated with respect as they do so.

I do not think there is any reason for governments to prescribe a particular way in which people construct their identities. What we need to be concerned about, as politicians, are cases where there is bullying, coercion, violence and torture. We can work together to address those situations, while recognizing that people may make all kinds of different choices about sexual action, behaviour or relationships, and it is up to them to make those choices.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to draw my colleague's attention to Carrie.

Carrie was a minor when she transitioned. Now she is publicly expressing her experience. She was prescribed hormones after four sessions of therapy and she noted that no attempts were made at these therapy sessions to process personal issues that she raised and no one in the medical or psychological field tried to dissuade her from her gender transition or offer an option other than possibly waiting until she was 18.

This was all Carrie's decision, but what she is saying is that she did not feel she was provided with all the tools that she needed to make that decision properly for herself. I know the justice shadow minister expressed that terminology is important here and that we need to see some amendments that protect individuals who are responsible for communication with people like Carrie. That would be the medical and psychological professions.

What would the member's perspective be on that?

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

Mr. Speaker, it is important to talk about cases of real people and their lived experiences. I know members on all sides of the House have.

The concern that anecdote gets at is that there may be cases in which counsellors are unsure about where this unclear definition is leading them. In a context that has absolutely nothing to do with conversion therapy, they might be trying to talk through what somebody is saying and experiencing and have a fear they will run afoul of the law if they ask questions of someone, who initially presents as identifying as transgender, that may in some way seem to challenge that identification.

We should have good, professional training for counsellors to ensure they are having conversations in a proper, effective way. However, we want to ensure we are not sticking in the arm of the criminal law in a way that creates a chill and maybe even an unwillingness to see or counsel people who are in these kinds of situations.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have had the opportunity to listen to many members from different sides of the House contribute to the debate thus far and I am inclined to share some thoughts in regard to this very important issue. I really want to emphasize a couple of points in particular. At my core, I believe that people should feel comfortable and have the freedom to be who they are. That is really important. It matters to us as a society and it should matter to all of us as individuals, given the country that we live in.

That is why I was encouraged and it has been said a couple of times that Canada wants to be known as the best, safest country in the world to fall in love. There is a lot that can be read into that and a lot of positive things that speak boldly about our diversity, tolerance and acceptance. Through the years, I am somewhat dating myself around the 57-58 mark, there have been significant changes and I want to reference some of those things as we have seen a very slow evolution of this very important issue.

Before I do that, I want to reflect on what the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan said. It is encouraging that the Conservative Party has agreed to free the vote so that members can vote whatever way they want. It is a bit of a surprise. I would have thought it might have been a mandatory or a whipped vote coming from the new leader, but for whatever reason, he has chosen to leave it as a free vote. I am a big advocate for the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and our Constitution. I understand the value of freedom to our nation. I thought that the leader of the Conservative Party would have had a whipped vote.

The member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan seemed to be of the opinion that the bill as it is written is not worth voting in favour of going to committee. I am anxious to see how he votes. I am hoping that he will be of the minority and we will see the legislation go to committee. The member could look at what the legislation would do to protect minors from conversion therapy provided within or outside Canada, adults who are vulnerable to being forced to undergo conversion therapy and Canadians from commercialization and conversation therapy. These are admirable and based on one part of the member's speech that he would be encouraged to support the legislation.

There has been a great deal of effort put into this legislation. I know the Minister of Diversity and Inclusion and Youth is very anxious to see the bill come before the House. She approached me on a couple of occasions and asked when we were going to debate this bill. There is a great deal of consultation that has taken place in different regions of our country. A great deal of effort has been put into place to date in terms of making sure that we have it right. Obviously, the minister indicated that there is always the possibility of amendments as long as they are given in good faith. I suspect there will be opportunities once it gets to committee.

It would be nice if every government bill, or anything that comes before the House, could have endless debate, but in order to get things passed, sometimes we have to allow it to go to a vote. I look forward to the vote, and ultimately the bill going to committee, because of what this bill would actually do.

The bill would criminalize causing a person under the age of 18, which is a minor, to undergo conversion therapy. It would criminalize removing a minor from Canada to undergo conversion therapy abroad. It would criminalize causing a person to undergo conversion therapy against their will. It would criminalize receiving a financial or other material benefit from the provision of conversion therapy. It would criminalize advertising and offering to provide conversion therapy. Of these initiatives, based on what I have heard today, most if not all would be supported, because everyone seems to be fairly hard on the issue of conversion therapy and for good reason.

I am a big fan of one of my former colleagues, Randy Boissonnault, from Edmonton. Many members will remember him. I always saw him as not only a dear friend, but also as a strong advocate who really understood LGBTQ2 issues. He made a point of explaining it and talking to anyone who had an interest. I recall an awkward situation I was in a number of years ago, and I was not exactly sure where to turn. I went to Randy to get his advice regarding something that was taking place in my own constituency and, as an individual, he made himself available to help us get through a very difficult issue.

Whether we like it or not, there is a great deal of discrimination out there today. Sadly, there are too many people who are made to feel something they should not, and it is having a profound impact on the lives of so many Canadians in all regions of our country. I do not believe that Randy is alone in this. I believe there are people like Randy throughout our country, and these advocates, these people with passion, can speak far greater than I could ever speak on the issue. Not only do they educate people like me, but they are also there for individuals in a very real and tangible way, because there is no shame, and there should be no shame.

I realize my time is coming to a close for the day, but I will hopefully continue tomorrow to talk about some of the changes that we have seen in a relatively short time span, such as the Winnipeg pride parade back in the late 1980s when it came into being and why. Winnipeg was the first major urban centre in North America to elect an openly gay mayor, Glen Murray.

There are many things we have seen over the years that give us all hope and encouragement, but I will continue my remarks tomorrow as my time has expired for this evening.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

The hon. parliamentary secretary will be delighted to know that he will have 10 and a half minutes remaining in his time when the House gets back to debate on the question. It appears all hon. members will be just as pleased. He will also have the extra 10 minutes for questions and comments. Of course, that will happen when the House gets back to debate.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Alex Ruff, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Madam Speaker, through you to my colleague across the way, I have a couple of quick points.

First, he mentioned at the start of his speech that he was confused as to whether he was 57 or 58 years old. I would appreciate that clarification.

I would like to note that I learned something new about him, which is that he served in the Canadian Armed Forces in the past. We will have that discussion.

Some of the previous members spoke about potential amendments to the bill and what they would like to see. I would like to state that conversion therapy is wrong and should be banned, but the Justice website states:

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.

Does the member have a concern that anything in that statement would prevent it from being included in this legislation?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, on the age front, January 22, 1962, at St. Boniface Hospital, was a very special moment for my parents. I will let the member do the math.

The member brings forward a very reasonable question. From statements made by the minister, I believe that once the bill goes to committee we, as a government, are open to the possibility of making some changes working with opposition members. All I ask members of all political parties to recognize is the immense amount of consultation and work that was done to bring the legislation we have today in its current form.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Madam Speaker, the member and I are both of the same age group. I remember, when I was a teenager, my queer friends were expelled from their families. It was common that if they came out to their parents, many of those young people were told they were not welcome in their own homes. I think of that because my mother goes to mass every single day, but in our home my parents always made sure that the dinner table was set for those who had been kicked out of their own families and had no place else. When we were teenagers, my father told us who we love is who we love, and that is what we must always remember. I think of how, with the young generation today and my daughter's friends, being gay or queer is not an issue. It is considered okay. We have come a long way, but we have not come far enough. I think banning conversion therapy is a huge step we have to take as a nation, to say that we will not go back and undermine the rights of people to be who they are. I want to commend my colleague for his speech.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, it is important for us to recognize how things have changed and why it is so important that we continue to move forward. The very first time I had an appreciation of how society needed to change was in the early eighties, when I first heard the phrase “gay bashing.” From what I can recall, it had taken place behind the Manitoba legislature. Although I would have been in my teens or early twenties, that is when I first became aware of it. Other families were possibly far more progressive than mine, which I appreciate in one sense. That is why it is so important for me to share my thoughts with my family, and my daughter Cindy in particular is probably now even further advanced on the issue than I am.

[Jenica Atwin, Green, Fredericton, NB]

Madam Speaker, we are talking about removing something from our society that can create harm.

I would also like to hear the parliamentary secretary's thoughts around some of the ways we need to improve investing in services and supports: wrap-around care. I am thinking about Clinic 554 in Fredericton, New Brunswick.

Across the country there are things we need to do to ensure that trans health care is something we protect and invest in, as an example. I am just wondering what the member thinks about that as a conversation.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I absolutely think it is important that, as a government, we work with other jurisdictions and do not underestimate the value of non-profit organizations that are advocacy groups and provide direct services. I know at least two or three websites have all sorts of wonderful resources.

There is so much more there now than a decade ago. However, there is still a need for governments to work together to ensure there is that ultimate freedom for people to be who they are.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Madam Speaker, I commend my colleague for his speech.

Yesterday, reference was made to people who get sex changes or other such medical procedures. It was said that we should be asking ourselves some questions in that regard. Personally, I think that is confusing the issue, since the main purpose of the bill currently before us is to protect children from unacceptable treatment.

I would like to hear what my colleague has to say about that.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I took the time to specifically read what the bill does. It is important because it is a significant step in terms of criminalizing conversion therapy. It is something I believe the vast majority of Canadians would support, because it is long overdue.

The member made reference to medical procedures. I am not quite as comfortable talking about that, because I do not know the details offhand.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the member for Winnipeg North for his speech. I enjoyed listening to it. We come from the same province, and I am familiar with some of the stories he told.

My question is regarding youth and children's volunteers. Many community organizations in my constituency have volunteers who give of their time to work with young people and adolescents. We know that many adolescents struggle with their sexual identity and have sexual dysphoria. They often go to leaders in their groups, whether coaches or youth leaders in a church or a community organization, to share their struggles. I have heard back from many constituents. Just last week I heard from people who work as leaders with middle school folks in an organization.

What are they supposed to do when someone comes to talk to them, looking for some clarification as to their sexual identity? Some believe, the way they read this legislation, that they could possibly be criminalized for that. I would like the hon. member to provide some clarity.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I suspect that once the bill goes to committee, through the presentations that will be made and the question-and-answer sessions, we will have a lot more clarity on the issue.

There are also Government of Canada websites, as well as the minister's opening comments in the introduction to the bill, that address many of the concerns the member raised. That is why I look forward to the bill ultimately going to committee and then coming back to the House.

I am hopeful that members on all sides of the House appreciate the value in seeing this legislation pass. I would like to see it pass through the House of Commons before the end of the year.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That sounds like a movie.

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

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

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

In Quebec, respect for gender identity and sexual orientation is a value, and conversion therapy violates that value. That is why we will be supporting Bill C-6, which amends the Criminal Code to criminalize the following: causing a person to undergo conversion therapy against the person's will; causing a child to undergo conversion therapy; doing anything for the purpose of removing a child from Canada with the intention that the child undergo conversion therapy outside Canada; advertising an offer to provide conversion therapy; and receiving a financial or other material benefit from the provision of conversion therapy.

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

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

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

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

Madam Speaker, I am concerned that an aspect of this issue is not being discussed. The LGBT community has many different members in it and they do not all have the same opinion.

I want to read a brief excerpt from an email I received from a constituent, a person in the LGBT community. She says, “Dear [member of Parliament for Hastings—Lennox and Addington]. As a lesbian, I'm 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.”

Could the member please address the concern of this woman, that people who would otherwise grow up to be gay or lesbian would be affirmed into transitioning, using irreversible medical and pharmaceutical means? This is a real concern from people in the LGBT community. Is the member not concerned that this is a legitimate concern of these people?

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

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

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

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech.

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

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Madam Speaker, we recognize that the Criminal Code falls under federal jurisdiction, while the Civil Code falls under Quebec's jurisdiction.

It is under the Civil Code that Quebec's bill was introduced, to protect individuals from any possible contract, whether they are an adult or a minor. Quebec is going that far. The Quebec bill targets charlatans as well as those who seek their services for a family member, whether it is a child or someone else. I therefore think that the two bills will work well together.

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

Madam Speaker, my question for my colleague is with respect to a young woman. She was a minor when she transitioned and experienced hormones after only four sessions of therapy. She noted that when she decided to de-transition, no one in the medical or psychological fields ever tried to dissuade her from her gender transition.

Is the member in favour of amendments that would ensure this type of situation would not happen, where medical and psychological professionals are apprehensive about providing a broad scope of options and recommendations to these young people? Ken Zucker, a Canadian world-renowned gender expert, was fired from CAMH for watchful waiting approaches with young gender dysphoric youth. We have a situation here where he possibly would have also been prosecuted. This would limit these young people's perspectives and opportunities in choosing to transition and then de-transition. Therefore, would she support—

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

The hon. member for Repentigny, for a very brief answer.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question.

As I said earlier in my speech, not a single health care professional worthy of the name would try to convince someone or try to call this science.

I will come back to what my son said when I asked him what he thought of all this. He said it was ultra-religious, ultra-conservative groups that want this. He believes that people who are accepted by their parents—hence the importance of upbringing—and accepted by the people in their community do not need therapy. People just need to accept themselves and love themselves.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Resilience is what I wish for them.

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

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

[Adam Vaughan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Families]

Madam Speaker, I listened with great interest to the Bloc's dissertations and presentations on this issue. It seems they understand there are systemic challenges for gay, lesbian, bisexual, trans and two-spirit communities. There are systems at play that disqualify their full and equal participation in society. If they can see that for the LGBTQ2S community, and they can see that for women, why can they not see it for other marginal communities in this country, including those who are racially marginalized?

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

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

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is true that all Canadians deserve respect and protection, and members of the LGBTQ2 community, of course, deserve this protection. Conversion therapy is reprehensible, and it should be outlawed.

Earlier this year, the justice department put some language on its website that adds greater clarity. I believe there is an opportunity here to clarify this and allow more members of the broader community to support members of the LGBTQ2 community. They would know that they can have conversations and not feel separated from their families. Instead, they would know that everyone in a family or faith community can have conversations, so people would feel supported, not in spite of who they, are or to change who they are, but for who they are.

I am wondering what the member thinks about an amendment to add the language the justice department previously put on its website.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, as a matter of fact, I believe that the effect of this bill will be to promote these conversations with the community. I do not think conversations will be hindered because of it. This bill does not prevent anyone, no matter their age, from discussing and advocating for their rights. On the contrary, this is a step in the right direction. Obviously, it is just an initial step.

This bill focuses on children in particular. I think it is important and sends a clear message.

[Ron Liepert, Conservative, Calgary Signal Hill, AB]

Madam Speaker, my question to the member is this: Is she concerned about whether, if this legislation is passed in its current form, it will be challenged in the courts, as so many of these amendments to the Criminal Code tend to be?

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

With regard to this legislation being challenged in the courts, I think that we need to start by passing the bill. Then we will see what happens.

I sincerely believe that we need to fight against the barbaric practice of conversion therapy, which should not still be happening in 2020. We can think about the types of court challenges that may arise, but I think that we first need to vote on this bill. That is what is important today.

[Richard Lehoux, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

Madam Speaker, I commend my colleague for her speech.

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

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

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

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Beauce for his question.

I completely agree with him. The prorogation of Parliament had an impact on many bills and on all of the committees that had to stop their work. I am joining the Standing Committee on the Status of Women to resume the work that had to be stopped because of prorogation.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Given conversion therapy's proven harms and its impact on the most marginalized among us, this bill would define conversion therapy for Criminal Code purposes as “a practice, treatment or service designed to change a person’s sexual orientation to heterosexual or gender identity to cisgender, or to repress or reduce non-heterosexual attraction or sexual behaviour.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech. I am glad she is on the right side of this issue and agrees that Canadian society in general and Quebec society in particular still have a ways to go.

I myself did not realize conversion therapy was even available in Canada. This bill does not seem progressive to me. It barely brings us into the 21st century. Knowing that we need a more tolerant and open society, what are we doing to ensure that society does a better job of accepting homosexual individuals in Quebec and Canada?

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

Madam Speaker, that is a very important question because there are still misconceptions out there, much like I spoke about in my speech. There are flyers distributed in Canada that somehow imply that individuals who are LGBTQ2 have made a choice or that people who are struggling with their gender identity can make a choice about it. I am really troubled to hear those kinds of comments.

Quite frankly, we heard stories at the health committee, particularly about young people who grow up and struggle all their lives with depression, anxiety, suicide and suicidal ideation. Those are things we need to stamp out in our country and make sure that people are welcoming and tolerant of individuals who may be different from themselves.

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

Madam Speaker, I appreciate many of the interventions made by my colleagues from different parties. The member used the words “red herring” a number of times. I am concerned about the fact that it has been used to nullify some of the legitimate concerns the Leader of the Opposition and others have raised about some of the ambiguity that exists around the bill. Certainly, I have some fairly strong opinions about the fact that this bill simply had to be reintroduced because the Liberals decided to shut down Parliament.

In order to see broader support to address this issue, which I think all in the House agree on, would she be willing to explore ways to remove the ambiguity that exists in the way the legislation is written currently?

We could then do exactly what the Liberals and all members of the House want to accomplish, which is to see these coercive practices banned in this country.

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

Madam Speaker, I did use the term “red herring” and it was one that was used yesterday in the speech by the member for Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, who has far more experience and knowledge on this issue than I do. He spoke very personally about this subject.

It is quite clear that there is absolutely nothing in the bill that would criminalize conversations. To imply that there is, I am sorry but we have to agree to disagree on this, that is the red herring. There is nothing that would criminalize conversations between people in the bill.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

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

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

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

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

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

Madam Speaker, actually, this bill does address part of that. One of the things we heard at committee was that just having provinces ban the practice does not go far enough. That is why we needed a Criminal Code amendment to deal with things like what the member described, such as how these so-called therapies move underground. The bill addresses that issue.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Madam Speaker, I agree with the member: Conversion therapy is an abuse of the most epic proportions, it is an abrogation of human rights and this bill should proceed.

I also think it is incumbent upon the government to move on a issue that it has had five years to move on, and that is ending the discriminatory blood ban. Can the member opposite please update the House on when she expects my gay friends to be able to donate blood?

[Rachel Bendayan, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

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

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

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Madam Speaker, one of the very first debates I remember being involved in was on the right to same-sex marriage. I received a call from my parish priest to say that if I did not change my vote, I would be excommunicated from the church. My wife was not allowed to participate in a graduation ceremony because of my vote, my daughter, in grade 2, was not allowed to make her First Communion. The diocese sent out a press release asking to have me defeated in the next election. I also remember the incredible support of Catholics and other religious people across the north, particularly in the Franco-Ontarian community where they remembered the Duplessis priests and being told from the pulpit how to vote.

That lesson taught me that Canadians are much more open, giving and caring than some of the religious leaders who have let us down in the past. However, religious communities are also struggling and trying to find ways of being positive. The bill before is a very important sign, and I think we should try to get as much support for it as possible.

[Rachel Bendayan, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

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

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

[Ron Liepert, Conservative, Calgary Signal Hill, AB]

Madam Speaker, I listened intently, not only to this member but to some of the other speeches from Liberal members. I hear over and over again the same words about what the bill would do.

One of the most impassioned speeches I have heard in the House in my short time here was yesterday from the member for Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, who clearly is supportive of the bill but is encouraging the government to look at an amendment that would add greater clarity around what is not prohibited. I would like to ask the member whether she is supportive of looking at that amendment.

[Rachel Bendayan, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

Madam Speaker, I agree that we need to work collaboratively as members in this House. I believe that we will have an opportunity in committee to look at proposed amendments and ensure that ideas such as the one that the Conservative member is proposing can be discussed, debated and perhaps included in this bill. It is certainly our intention to be as open and collaborative as possible.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Madam Speaker, the member talked a lot about treatment, services and procedures, and I am wondering whether she could clarify what she means. I think we all agree in the House that barbaric, degrading, dehumanizing, coerced and unwanted treatments should be prohibited, but can she clarify a little more on what she believes would be acceptable?

[Rachel Bendayan, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

Madam Speaker, I believe the previous colleague also raised this point.

Perhaps there is some concern in this House around conversations. The Minister of Justice has clarified that conversations between individuals and their religious leaders, or individuals and their counsellors or psychologists are not included in this bill and are absolutely permitted under what is being proposed by the government. I think we need to keep that in mind as we move forward.

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

Madam Speaker,

“You know, nothing makes God happier than when two people, any two people, come together in love. Friends, family, we're gathered here today to join Carol and Susan in holy matrimony.”

Twenty-six years ago now, 14-year-old me watched Ross Geller walk his ex-wife down the aisle to be married to her lesbian partner. At the time, it was quite the thing, one of the first mainstream television portrayals of a non-straight wedding. This episode of Friends was censored in parts of the U.S. and was aired nearly 10 years before same-sex marriage was legalized in Canada.

For 40-year-old me to be standing here debating this bill, it makes me ask why, but it is necessary. I cannot believe that we need to debate the bill, yet here we are. Even though our society has made progress in removing barriers to equality of opportunity for the LGBTQ+ community, which I will refer to as “the community” throughout my speech, these Canadians still face significant discrimination and marginalization. The topic of the bill is one facet that reflects and contributes to this marginalization.

Today I want to describe what the bill would do, why it is important and why it should be supported, and clarify confusion on some issues that have arisen around its form and structure.

First, I want to discuss what so-called conversion therapy is. In the words of my dear friend and brother from a different mother, Brian Hearn, “it isn't therapy, It's abuse, it's torture.” Brian is right. It is abuse and it is a violation of basic human rights.

According to the Canadian Psychological Association, conversion therapy refers to “any formal therapeutic attempt to change the sexual orientation of bisexual, gay and lesbian individuals to heterosexual.” This definition has generally been updated to include methods that aim to change the gender identity or gender expression of an individual. This practice is rooted in the false and outdated assumption that homosexuality and other forms of gender and sexual diversity are mental disorders that can be “cured”. This is a position that medical practitioners around the world have rejected for some years.

Many leaders from conversion therapy organizations, sometimes called the ex-gay movement, have since denounced the practice as clearly harmful and many of their leaders have even come out as LGBTQ+ themselves.

There is no scientific evidence that these practices have medical merit. In fact, it is the opposite. The Canadian Psychiatric Association, for example, has called the practices “pseudoscientific.” While some people's understanding of their own sexual identity might change over time, there is no evidence that their sexual orientation, who they are sexually attracted to, changed.

The scientific and medical communities have confirmed what every member of the community already knows; that we are born loving who we are, loving who we love and that there is nothing to fix. That is where the bill comes in.

The bill would make illegal, via amendment to the Criminal Code, the following: forcing someone to undergo conversion therapy against his or her will; causing a child to undergo conversion therapy; doing anything to remove a child from Canada with the intent that the child would undergo conversion therapy outside of Canada; advertising an offer to provide conversion therapy; and receiving financial or other material benefit for from provision of conversion therapy.

Some may ask why the bill is necessary. First, there is overwhelming consensus by scientific and medical practitioners and organizations in Canada and around the world that conversion therapy is unequivocally harmful. From one Canadian survey of survivors of conversion therapy, 30% had attempted suicide following their intervention. All survivors who responded experienced harmful psychological effects, “ranging from mild distress to severe anxiety, self-hatred, and suicide attempts.”

The Canadian Psychological Association also notes distress, depression, a feeling of personal failure, difficulty sustaining relationships and sexual dysfunction as consequences of conversion therapy. Many survivors noted that recovering from this trauma was akin to recovering from any other trauma. It took years, to a whole lifetime, to deal with the pain and suffering caused by so-called conversion therapy.

Some so-called conversion therapy advocates, especially those in the United States, have claimed that conversion therapy might have positive effects for a small minority of participants. This is also categorically false.

In 2009, the American Psychological Association said of such so-called research, “nonexperimental studies often find positive effects that do not hold up under the rigor of experimentation.” It is important to note this, because these false beliefs are often held up as a reason for why the bill is not necessary.

For those who think it does not happen in Canada, think again.

Estimates range between 20,000 and 47,000 Canadians having been exposed to this vile practice. With a 30% suicide rate, think of how many Canadians have attempted to take their life because of this torture. On top of this, the systemic marginalization LGBTQ2 Canadians already face in general makes it even worse. They are more likely to experience poverty, homelessness and physical violence.

With respect to mental health, the stigma and discrimination against the community's youth produces what many researchers call minority stress, which leaves LGBTQ2 people at a higher risk of health issues.

For example, youth from the community face 14 times the risk of suicide and substance abuse than their heterosexual and cisgender peers. They also face double the risk of PTSD than their heterosexual or cisgender counterparts. A 2013 study of trans people in Ontario 15 and older found that 77% had seriously considered suicide before and 43% had attempted suicide. Among the most vulnerable to suicide were trans youth, aged 16 to 24. Importantly, the study found that suicide risk for trans individuals decreased with social, societal and parental support.

We must also discuss the economic marginalization of members of the community. Among 40,000 young Canadians who are homeless each year, studies estimate between 25% and 40% are LGBTQ2. That is between 10,000 and 16,000 homeless people in Canada. One Ontario study also found that half of all trans Ontarians lived on less than $15,000 a year.

Then there are the overt acts of violence and discrimination against the community. Between 2014 and 2018, hundreds of hate crimes on the basis of sexual orientation were reported to police, constituting 10% of all hate crimes during this period. We do not even know about hate crimes on the basis of gender identity and expression during this period because there was no category for it. As such, we do not even have statistics to describe the extent of violence against trans Canadians, which we know is large, given anecdotal reports. However, other reports paint a troubling picture. A 2011 Egale Canada reported that 74% of trans students faced verbal harassment and 37% experienced physical harassment.

The Canadian Mental Health Association has shown that positive mental health and well-being for members of the community more broadly is associated with family and friend support, supportive work environments, low levels of internalized homophobia and positive responses to coming out, which is why the bill is important.

To put this more bluntly, rejection from parents, family members, religious communities, workplaces and more that members of the community face present a clear and direct threat to their equality and dignity. People end up on the street if their families reject them for being gay or trans. They end up selling their bodies if they are on the streets with no option. They end up facing violence if people hate who they are. All this is to say that banning conversion therapy will not suddenly end homophobia and transphobia in Canada, but it can make things better and it can stop stigma. This bill is a very good step in the right direction.

Now I will clarify some confusion on certain issues with regard to the bill.

Some have expressed concerns that the bill could prevent a trans person from “detransitioning”.

First, this is a phenomenon that rarely happens. A U.S.-based survey by the National Center for Transgender Equality found that only 0.4% of respondents detransitioned after realizing transitioning was not what they wanted. The rest who reported detransitioning, 7.6% of the 28,000 people surveyed, reported the reason for that as another reason, most often because of pressure from parents.

Second, this argument is predicated on the belief that it is easy to transition. This is patently false and painfully laughable for the many trans Canadians who are in the midst of transition today.

Wait times for gender-affirming interventions are long processes with many required medical steps and interventions. It takes time for assessments, time for referrals and time on the waiting list. The idea that trans persons are able to medically transition without any time to reflect and, as a result, they might be coerced into it is patently bunk, as is the assumption that medical transition can happen without medical supervision.

I also want to be clear that not every trans person wishes to undergo a medical transition. However, for those who do, medical transition can involve multiple courses of actions that are discussed and guided by medical professionals. These include hormone therapy, genital or chest surgeries or other gender confirming surgeries.

If we take the case of genital surgery in Ontario, a person needs two assessments recommending surgery from a doctor, nurse, nurse practitioner, social worker or psychologist and both of these assessments must confirm persistent gender dysphoria, not transitional gender dysphoria. Therefore, it must be clear that this has been happening over a period of time and the person must have taken 12 months of hormone therapy already. This just does not happen overnight or on a lark.

My friend Hannah Hodson, here in Ontario, wanted me to share her experience. She first started speaking to a therapist, then met with many doctors and it took her over a year to first get her first hormone prescription. At the time, she was a 32-year-old adult living in the easiest province in Canada to do it, because Ontario operates on informed consent for adults. That is not the case in many other parts of our country.

The assertion that it is easy for a child to transition in Canada or that medical transition happens without rigorous oversight is also bunk. For children in Canada, they and their parents would first have to start by speaking to a medical professional and likely a gender therapist. For children transitioning, changes are usually 100% social; that is, how they act, how they dress. It is only under the strict oversight of medical professionals that someone could access even reversible interventions like puberty blockers. In terms of gender-affirming surgeries, by way of medical practice standards in Canada, they do not really happen before age 18 anyway.

These assumptions are also rooted in the basis of an overly simplified and scientifically rejected perception of gender as solely relating to sex or genitals. The concept of gender identity is about relating to the world, not just genitalia. Many trans people choose to live without those surgeries and it does not make them any less than who they are. However, for many people, that gender-affirming care is what they need to live as a fully functioning member of society.

Back to my friend Hannah, she said, “I always joke that there is no way I would willingly do this if it wasn’t who I am. I was living as a straight presenting white man, I had won the jackpot.” The decision to transition is not made on a lark because an out trans person still faces enormous challenges even in Canada. Trans people face incredible rates of abuse and harassment. According to a 2011 Egale survey, 74% of trans students report verbal harassment and 37% report physical harassment.

Hannah can maybe now go to 35 countries safely, maybe. In Ontario, even today, people send her threats or call her a freak when she is walking down the street, and she lives in one of the most accepting cities in Canada. If anyone ever does this to Hannah, she should tell them to come talk to me.

Another recent study showed that 45% of trans people in a survey sampled have committed suicide. However, there is hope. With strong family support, that rate drops by 93%. Therefore, to fully refute the notion that somehow the bill hurts trans persons in any way, it is the opposite. It will reduce the stigma they face and stop a form of violence against them.

It has also been suggested that the bill may criminalize private conversations, particularly between a parent and a child or a religious leader and a parishioner. I believe this to be false after reading the bill.

First, uncoerced conversations, including those with minors, are already protected by freedom of expression under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The bill would further protect this right by defining conversion therapy directly in the bill as “a practice, treatment or service designed to change a person’s sexual orientation to heterosexual or gender identity to cisgender, or to repress or reduce non-heterosexual attraction or sexual behaviour.”

Upon reading the bill, I believe that the phrasing “designed to” makes it crystal clear that the bill does not criminalize formal conversations between faith leaders or family members. If there are concerns regarding freedom of expression, people should rejoice. The bill would protect the values of freedom of expression, the right to expression of self and truth as it pertains to sexual orientation and gender identity, which are necessary given all the evidence of discrimination against the community that I have already presented.

It also has been suggested that the bill has the potential to criminalize prayer or religious belief. I also believe this to be a false assertion. Freedom of religious expression is an underpinning of Canada’s pluralism, which I strongly support. There is, however, a clear difference between a religious belief and a sustained effort made by somebody in a coercive setting to change someone’s sexual orientation or gender identity. In the same way, there is a difference between a general prayer and this practice as well. I believe the bill already clearly outlines these differences, for the following reason.

Most members seem to agree that banning conversion therapy is a pressing and substantive objective. Protecting the health and well-being of LGBTQ2 Canadians from clear harm is of urgent concern. As such, this bill is proportional to any potential burdens on, for example, religious freedom claims.

This bill proposes limits that are rationally connected to the goal of protecting LGBTQ2 Canadians, but it does not arbitrarily infringe on religious freedom. It does not, for example, infringe on holding anti-LGBTQ2 beliefs, which I, for the record, do not have, and I do not believe anyone should have. It only prevents them from acting on them. In my view, the spirit and value of religious freedoms is to protect individuals so they may practise their faith. Many existing provisions in our Criminal Code, however, already limit what actions might be taken in the name of that. Religious freedom does not extend to harming others.

To be clear, this does not mean that Bill C-6 somehow infringes on parents' rights to talk to their children about sex and sexuality. It does not infringe on parents' rights to hold the belief that homosexuality is wrong, which is, again, a belief I fully reject. It does not infringe on those parents' rights to express that belief either. It does, as has been stated over and over, prevent any practice, treatment, or service, designed to change someone’s sexuality or gender identity. Bill C-6 draws the line at turning that belief into a practice designed to change fundamentally who someone is, and in so doing, prevents harm to their person.

Banning conversion therapy mitigates one fraction of the violence and marginalization directed at the community, but it does not stop hate crimes, bullying and harassment. Also, it does not fix all of the other issues that I outlined before.

For those who are worried that this could somehow be a slippery slope, I would also point members to the fact that many other jurisdictions and municipalities have also, within the tools available to them within their jurisdictional responsibilities, implemented similar measures. Churches are still operating, as are mosques and gurdwaras. Society is going on, but I feel those types of regulations have sent a message to the LGBTQ2 community that society is working on some of the systemic discriminations I outlined already.

I have spent a lot of time discussing my view as a legislator today, but I would like to take a minute and explain my view on this as a human being, so I will go back to my smart and effervescent friend Hannah. She wanted me to tell the House this on her behalf: “LGBTQ people are who they are. You can’t turn or fix us. There is nothing to fix. But you can choose to love and support us instead.”

That is really what I hope we can do as a country. No amount of legislation can change hearts and minds. Only an individual commitment to compassion, understanding and kindness will do that.

I remember standing on a windy patio in Banff in July 2019. In Alberta, members of Parliament can legally perform wedding ceremonies, and on that day I had the privilege of uniting two beautiful humans in marriage. They were surrounded by loving and excited friends and family members, and there was not a dry eye in the place, including mine, because their love for each other was so infectious we could not help but revel in it. For Spencer and Jeff Seabrook, that day was not about their sexual orientation. It was about a joyous celebration of their love for one another.

That is how I think it should be. In the same way, I have five people who I consider to be my family. The love they give me everyday, and I mean everyday, is not about the fact they are gay. It is about the fact they are amazing human beings who I deeply love in return. I do not want to fix them because they are already perfect.

Most days, it is more about them trying to improve me. They stood with me in my wedding party when I got married. They even bristled when former Prime Minister Harper tried to give them pointers on how to walk down the wedding runway, although Matt and I must admit he had a point. When two of those amazing people told me they were engaged, we celebrated with joy. I say to Dustin Franks, Miguel Arturo Possamai, Craig Sklenar, Craig Volkerink, Brian Hearn, Matt MacDonald and Garrett Ayers that this one is for them.

This morning Matt texted me and said, “Back when we were born, LGBTQ people were facing accusations that they were converting straight people gay. How ironic is it that 40 years later, you’re giving a speech in the House of Commons to prevent people from violating human rights and forcibly attempt to convert gays the other way. Get it together, people!” He has got a point.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech, in which she spent quite a bit of time debunking some of the myths about Bill C-6. I would ask her why, when we proposed unanimous consent for this bill to ban conversion therapy, the members of the Conservative Party yelled nay? Why is it that, as the health critic, she is unable to explain the very logical arguments she just gave to her colleagues, so we can unanimously pass Bill C-6 in this House and ban conversion therapy once and for all?

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

Madam Speaker, I am not sure if my colleague opposite has been here long enough to understand that what we do in this place is debate. Debating is not a bad thing. In fact, she just said that she is looking forward to debating amendments.

My friend Dustin Franks said I should say the following to the first Liberal who stands to ask me a question: “You've been in government for five years. Why can't I give blood? Seriously. The best you could do for me as a gay man is give me a special loonie. Stop tokenizing us and take away the blood ban.”

He is right.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Madam Speaker, I think that is one of the most compelling speeches we have heard on the bill. Hats off to the member.

As the previous speaker said, she debunked a bunch of myths and bogus arguments, such as medical treatment, which the bill does not address, private conversations, which are not in jeopardy, and religious beliefs.

She did a terrific job of explaining that a civilized society is entitled to impose limits on religious beliefs. She gave a wonderful speech. I cannot believe that we are still debating these issues in 2020. She also brilliantly raised the issue of blood donation.

I would like to hear a bit more from her on the urgency of passing the bill. Some of our colleagues in the House have said that they are reluctant to support the bill. I would like my colleague to tell us how we can convince them to vote overwhelmingly or unanimously in favour of the bill.

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

Madam Speaker, again, this is a place where we do something called debate. We are debating now. It is respectful. We are looking at things, which we also do at committee. It is kind of what people pay us to do. I do not think debate is a bad thing.

The member raised the issue of the blood ban. Where is the action on that? It has been five years. Honestly, the fact that we have not ended the blood ban perpetuates the stereotypes that somehow gay blood is dirty, that there is not a better way. It really cheeses me off that I have to stand here and explain this to people. I really would like to see legislation of equal urgency from the Liberals to end the gay blood ban.

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

Madam Speaker, the hon. member just gave a very compelling speech. I hope all members of the House get to listen to it, because not only is it compelling but it is also very persuasive.

She was talking about her age and her memories going back to when she first experienced a gay marriage on television. Not long ago, it was very frequent that individuals would talk about homosexuality as a lifestyle choice, debunking it and belittling the reality of individuals who were gay or lesbian. We have come a fairly long way in that, and now we are here talking about conversion therapy being wrong, not in a unanimous view, but we are very close to unanimous in terms of it being wrong. There may be some details we need to talk about.

Would the member comment on the issue of body affirming, which seems to be another way being used, particularly in dealing with transgender people, to seek to change them, get them to conform to a particular identity and live happily after, but there is no—

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

I have to give the hon. member the possibility of answering.

The hon. member for Calgary Nose Hill.

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

Madam Speaker, I am not quite sure what the member's question was.

I outlined in my speech a great deal of facts about how transpersons are treated and approach their life in Canada. We should be sticking to the opinions of medical professionals and approaching transpersons in Canada with every degree of compassion that they should be afforded to ensure they live with dignity and without barriers to equality of opportunity.

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills, ON]

Madam Speaker, I appreciated the very personal and erudite speech from the member for Calgary Nose Hill. It follows on the speech of another colleague, the member for Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, which was equally personal and quite well argued.

It is interesting listening to the Liberal members in the House on this issue. They suggest that we should not have debate and we should just pass the bill through Parliament unanimously. It indicates to me their overall approach to Parliament. They think Parliament is a nuisance. It reminds me of the motion they put earlier in the pandemic, which they were trying to jam through the House, where they were proposing to suspend Parliament's review and power over spending and taxation until the end of next year. It is reflective of a general, dismissive attitude to Parliament on the part of Liberal members.

Forcing anyone to change their gender or identity cannot be allowed to stand in a free and democratic society. The member mentioned her friend Hannah and the issue of informed consent in Ontario. Can the member tell us how this legislation would interact with provincial legislation, regulations and practices already in place across the country?

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

Madam Speaker, that is a very good question, and one that committees should look at. I would be very interested in hearing from experts on that issue, which is why, to my colleague's point, debate is important. It makes sure the bill is fully set out. We are on second reading, which means that a vote in favour of this bill would take it to committee for that type of question.

This bill would greatly help the trans community. As I said in my speech, it would remove barriers to equality and to their dignity. I really think it is a good thing.

I just wanted to say for the member, because my friends from Calgary were texting me, that he is invited to Matt's house for dinner. The member has a bit of a fan club there hoping he will accept the invitation.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, I agree with my colleague from Berthier—Maskinongé that that was a very inspiring speech. It was a fantastic speech, and I commend my colleague for it.

We are debating and legislating on the issue of conversion therapy today because there is pressure, mainly from small religious groups that keep their followers somewhat in the dark, at a time when the young people we are talking about need the support of their families and loved ones to get through this period of questioning and self-acceptance.

Does my colleague agree that we should put more focus on education to help these groups evolve in their way of thinking, join the 21st century and, perhaps, be more welcoming and accepting?

I would like to hear what my colleague thinks about that.

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

Madam Speaker, I laid out in my speech why I do not think this bill impinges on religious freedom or the right to individual conversations.

I would just say this: We do have religious freedom in Canada. Just because I do not like what somebody believes does not mean that I have the ability as a legislator to legislate that thought away. It is my responsibility as a human being to change hearts and minds in my actions and how I live. I personally believe that God is love and there is no force in the universe that would tell somebody they are imperfect because of whom they love. That is my deep and personal conviction and belief, and I would not associate with an organization that believed otherwise.

I fundamentally think this is about choice. As I said in my speech, each of our individual actions and responsibilities are to live what we believe, live for good, treat others with dignity and compassion, work to remove the barriers they face to equality of opportunity, and—

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

Resuming debate, the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Economic Development and Official Languages.

[Kate Young, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Economic Development and Official Languages (FedDev Ontario)]

Madam Speaker, I am proud to rise to speak in favour of Bill C-6. This bill represents an important step forward toward building a more supportive and inclusive Canada for all, specifically for the LGBTQ2 community.

Debate on this legislation has been very respectful and quite different from what we would have heard only a few years ago. I am heartened to hear most MPs stand up and say uncategorically that conversion therapy on minors is abhorrent and must be stopped.

We have heard stories about how damaging conversion therapy can be on young people who are struggling with their sexuality. However, it is important to remember that it is not just the person undergoing conversion therapy who is impacted by this form of torture, which I truly believe is torture. Family members and friends are impacted as well.

Many truly believe that if this therapy is available and advertised, it must be acceptable, but it is anything but. I realize this legislation falls short of a total ban on conversion therapy, but it is a start. The measures contained in this bill are the most progressive and comprehensive legislative response to conversion therapy in the world.

Some members of the official opposition are worried that the bill lacks clarity. They claim the passage of this bill risks criminalizing conversations between young Canadians discovering who they are and the individuals they may seek out for advice, such as parents, teachers, faith leaders and coaches. However, the language is quite clear. Nothing in this bill criminalizes these types of conversations. What this criminalizes is exactly what the Leader of the Opposition claims he supports: criminalizing forcing a young person to undergo conversion therapy against their will or removing them from the country to do so. We are criminalizing a discredited and deeply traumatic practice. We are also ensuring that individuals profiting off of conversion therapy or the advertisements to provide it can no longer do so.

Under this legislation, the following definition of conversion therapy is provided:

conversion therapy means a practice, treatment or service designed to change a person’s sexual orientation to heterosexual or gender identity to cisgender, or to repress or reduce non-heterosexual attraction or sexual behaviour. For greater certainty, this definition does not include a practice, treatment or service that relates

(a) to a person’s gender transition; or

(b) to a person’s exploration of their identity or to its development.

In other words, these amendments would not criminalize those who provide affirming support to persons struggling with their sexual orientation or gender identity, such as friends, family members, teachers, social workers, religious leaders and so on; nor would the amendment criminalize private conversations between consenting adults.

I have another definition for my colleagues. “Therapy”, according to Merriam-Webster, is the “medical treatment of impairment, injury, disease or disorder”. It means to fix or to heal something that is impaired, disordered or broken.

Conversion therapy assumes something is wrong with LGBTQ2 Canadians. Let us take note that the Canadian Psychiatric Association removed homosexuality from its list of disorders in 1982. Telling young people they are abnormal and need to be fixed, or trying to fix them, is the problem and why this bill is necessary.

I encourage all members, in their deliberations on this bill, to read first-hand accounts of what the survivors of conversion therapy go through. In Garrard Conley's memoir, Boy Erased, inspiration for a film of the same name, he writes about his experiences surviving in a conversion therapy camp. The sort of counselling they offered was to tell him, “Your thoughts are harmful to God. They're disgusting, unnatural. An abomination.” They are an abomination. I say that word again because it is not a descriptor that should be used for anyone. Can members imagine how traumatizing it would be for anyone, let alone people in a vulnerable state who are looking for love and support, to be told they are unnatural? That is not therapy. It is torture.

Canada is an accepting country, and we have come a long way in the 50 years since homosexuality was decriminalized, in the 38 years since it stopped being seen as a mental disorder and even in the 15 years since same-sex marriage was legalized. However, we still have so much further to go.

I represent the riding of London West, and our city has had its own history of denying the LGBTQ2 community its voice. In 1995, organizers of the gay pride march asked the mayor of the day to issue a city proclamation in support of the pride march. She refused. The decision led to a three-year legal battle that ended with the Ontario Human Rights Commission fining the mayor and the city $10,000. It ordered the city to make the proclamation.

Today, the gay pride parade is one of the best celebrations in London, bringing together people of all ages, ethnic origins and sexual orientations. It was one of the big disappointments this year that as a result of the pandemic, we could not have the usual parade. We can only hope that next year's pride parade will be able to move ahead as usual, because we need to remind the community how important it is to have a voice and for young people to know they are not alone.

We do not have to go too far back in our own history in this chamber to remember how far we have come. As we know, section 15 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the equality rights, protects sexuality and sexual orientation from discrimination. However, we must remind ourselves that sexuality was not explicitly stated in the original document. The joint committee of Parliament established to review the charter rejected explicitly including sexuality by a vote of 15 to two. The committee heard from organizations representing LGBT Canadians as to why they thought sexuality should be included in the charter. The meeting was held just down the hall from this chamber, and the questions hon. members asked at that time make for discouraging reading.

I will share them with my colleagues, because I want to demonstrate how dated some of the language and arguments around this issue were. One member actually stormed out of the proceedings after denouncing the gay and lesbian witnesses for peddling what he called an unacceptable lifestyle and one that would corrupt children. Another member shared this view and told LGBT Canadians that they really should not complain about the persecution he acknowledged they experienced. To him, they deserved it.

Thankfully, these abhorrent comments are in the minority, and I know that Canadians recognize the need to value and love everyone, even those who are different from us. Thankfully, today, we can see that Canada has openly LGBTQ2 legislators, mayors, actors, musicians and athletes. Their mere presence shakes the barriers that the community continues to face and slowly and surely helps bring them down. Their voices help us realize how we have failed them in the past and where we must do better.

We know that despite the recognition of equality under the law, the out and proud role models and, most importantly, the growing support of LGBTQ2 Canadians, fear of being different remains. That fear is not unfounded. Unconscious biases still exist, as do attitudes that are not accepting and supportive. Some avoid coming out because they believe it may negatively affect their careers or wonder how their friends and family might view them. Some who have come out deal with the trauma of being rejected by friends, families and communities. Far too many LGBTQ2 youth, from Nova Scotia to London to Alberta to British Columbia, still do not find the love and support they need. It is heartbreaking to know that around 40,000 young Canadians are homeless right now. Up to 40% of them are homeless because of their LGBTQ2 identity. It is hard to come out, and it can be hard for a person to have someone they love come out to them.

Organizations like PFLAG London in my community are there to help individuals who come out and help their families and friends as well. There are countless other organizations, including many religious ones, that help persons who struggle with issues of their sexual orientation, gender identity and gender expression. These real supports will not be negatively impacted by this law. Supports that treat people with respect, love and dignity are very small asks. This is how all human beings should be treated. It is how we can have those difficult conversations with the ones we love.

Conversion therapy assumes that something is broken and needs to be fixed, but it has not fit the definition of therapy in Canada for almost 40 years. This bill is long overdue, and I am proud to support it because it is another step in the right direction. We cannot continue to pretend that the abusive, sickening practice of conversion therapy is okay in any way, shape or form for our communities.

[Gerald Soroka, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Mr. Speaker, a few months ago, I met with various clergy from different denominations. When we brought up Bill C-6, I thought they were going to say that through prayer they could actually change someone, but that was far from the truth. They were very concerned that, by having a conversation with someone who is gay, lesbian or transgender, they could be persecuted or prosecuted for a crime. They were concerned that if they spoke to them, they would be criminalized.

The member said this was false. Could she please explain how they came to the conclusion that they would be charged in some form or sent to prison? Why do they have this rationale? Could the member change it and explain to them why this is not the case?

[Kate Young, Liberal, London West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we know that conversations of this type are difficult, but they must happen. To say that we cannot have conversations would be unrealistic. We must allow for conversation to take place to make sure that young people know they are loved and are part of their community.

This bill would not in any way make it a crime to have those conversations. That is the first step, and it is important and will continue to be important.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech.

We know that the Quebec National Assembly is also debating a bill on conversion therapy. It is great to see the two parliaments working together.

MNAs in Quebec City are also wondering whether individuals who are under the control of religious organizations that consider homosexuality to be a mortal sin could decide to challenge the Quebec law in court on the grounds of freedom of conscience and religion. That is something that is being discussed in Quebec City.

I am wondering whether the federal government had any such discussions. It is certainly important to start by passing the bill. However, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. These preliminary discussions about possible court challenges to the federal law would help us prepare to deal with that eventuality.

[Kate Young, Liberal, London West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this is a step in the right direction. There is no question that religious freedom is a part of what we believe in this country and that will not change.

We know that there could be some more discussion, right up to the Supreme Court, on these issues, which is entirely part of the process. It behooves us to move forward and make sure that we get this right.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech.

I agree with her 100% and could not have put it better myself. She is absolutely right: this bill is a step in the right direction, one I think we should have taken long ago.

Her description of conversion therapy as abhorrent, disgusting, abusive, and even dangerous resonated with me. If conversion therapy is all of those things, why does the Liberal government's bill not seek to ban it outright?

[Kate Young, Liberal, London West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I must admit that I wish the bill went further. I agree that we need to move forward on this so that conversion therapy is outlawed completely. However, we know that in this country we want to make sure to bring everybody onside and that we do this step by step. This is our first step toward that.

I hope that eventually we will be voting on a bill that will completely criminalize conversion therapy in Canada.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Before resuming debate, I wish to inform the House that there have been more than five hours of debate on this motion during this first round. Consequently, the maximum time allocated for all subsequent interventions shall be 10 minutes for speeches and five minutes for questions and comments.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Churchill—Keewatinook Aski.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-6, an act to amend the Criminal Code to ban conversion therapy, a truly horrific practice. Bill C-6 specifically criminalizes 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”: charging for, profiting from or advertising conversion therapy for both minors and adults.

We must be clear. Homophobia and transphobia kill. They are a side of the fascist and hateful coin that demonizes and attacks us all. As parliamentarians we must be clear: There is nothing wrong, or that requires fixing, with anyone in the LGBTQ2IA communities. Conversion therapy is a horrific practice that should never have happened. The fact that it did, has and does is shameful. Our families, doctors and communities should be sources of comfort and respite for everyone, not harm.

The first responsibility of members of Parliament is to stand up for the rights and dignity of their constituents. The bill is an opportunity to show that. It is an opportunity to say no to homophobia and transphobia, because homophobia and transphobia kill. Let us send a clear message to the bullies, the bigots and those who would harm the LGBTQ2IA communities that their harmful behaviour, their hate and demonization are unacceptable and unwanted. Let our voice of love drown out the hate. We must speak out against homophobic and transphobic jokes, because they are not jokes. It is hate. Every one of those hateful jokes does the same type of damage we are talking about here. It comes from the same type of hate we are trying to stamp out. If we see it, we must say something. We must make it clear which side we stand on.

The phrase “conversion therapy” does not really reflect the horror of the practice, so let us be clear about what we are talking about: electroshock therapy, forced vomiting, forced ingestion of psychotropic drugs such as ketamine, and exorcisms and beatings. Simply put, it is abuse. Trying to force people to be something they are not will never work. We should not try, because there is nothing wrong with who they are.

A recent study showed that roughly 20% of gay, bi or two-spirited men experienced some form of conversion therapy. Another said that 42% of survivors age 13-24 attempt suicide. Homophobia and transphobia kill. It is no surprise when people are told that they are lesser and they do not matter: when they are told they need “fixing.” To anyone listening who needs to hear it, let me be clear. They do not need fixing. They are fine just the way they are. It is the folks attacking them who need fixing, not them. It may not feel like it, but many people believe in them, want them to succeed and cannot wait to meet them.

This hateful message often comes from those closest to us: parents, neighbours and in some cases even elected officials. It is truly unacceptable. We must put an end to it. We must put an end to homophobia and transphobia because they kill. It is impossible to change someone's sexual orientation, gender identity or gender expression through conversion therapy, nor would it be desirable even if it worked. All we would be doing is contributing to further harm, sometimes leading to depression and social isolation and often to self-harm or death by suicide. This is true of traditional conversion therapy and so-called body affirming therapy. We must ban conversion therapy. We must say no to homophobia and transphobia because they kill.

As we get to this moment, I would like to recognize the work of those who got us here. In so many of these struggles, we do not always get to bear witness to the hard work of community members and survivors who lay the groundwork. I want to recognize the LGBTQ2IA advocacy groups, labour unions, members of the medical community and the movement builders. I think of trailblazers across the country like my friend, Cheri DiNovo; my colleague, the MP forEsquimalt—Saanich—Sooke; trailblazers like Svend Robinson and Bill Siksay, former members of Parliament for the NDP; and my provincial colleagues, like Janis Irwin, who speak out and have spoken out against homophobia and transphobia at any chance they had.

I think of every survivor who has shared their story, every person who has spoken out and every community member who has endured, and I think of those who did not. Not one more person should be murdered by homophobia or transphobia. We owe it to those who are not here to make sure it never happens again.

I am happy to see some really inspiring and amazing work happening at the municipal, provincial and territorial levels across the country to protect queer youth. No provincial health plans allow for conversion therapy as part of the public health care insurance system. No reputable health care provider should perform the practice, yet we know that it happens. That is why this legislation is so critical.

Only my home province of Manitoba has a formal and complete ban on health professionals offering conversion therapy. It was the first province to ban the practice. Today, nearly 80 per cent of Alberta is covered by conversion therapy bans, but the provincial government refuses to act. Its lack of leadership puts children in danger.

Ontario, Nova Scotia and P.E.I. have made it illegal for health professionals to practice conversion therapy on minors. Yukon Territory is moving forward with legislation to ban conversion therapy as well.

However, there has been a lack of federal leadership until this point. In 2019, my former colleague Sheri Benson brought forward a petition by the Lethbridge Public Interest Research Group, signed by survivors and allies, calling on the government to ban the practice. They shared their stories and their collective voice called on us as parliamentarians to stand with them.

At the time, the Liberal government used the tired argument of obstructionists to human dignity everywhere: state rights. After countless survivors and activists continued to raise their voices, the government relented. The government was wrong then, but I am glad it is moving now, because homophobia and transphobia kill.

Let us be clear on the Liberals' pink-washed record on LGBTQ rights more broadly. A government that believes in queer rights does not prop up the Saudi Arabian government: one of the worst abusers of LGBTQ rights in the world. It does not continuously deny the right of men who have sex with men to give blood, despite saying otherwise.

In 2020, being an ally must mean more than doing the bare minimum. It must mean more than attending Pride parades. It must mean giving communities the tools to live in dignity and in health, and to lead their own fights in their own way.

New Democrats support this legislation, but we believe it must go further. We must make sure we are not leaving trans people behind. We must make sure that when we talk about banning conversion therapy for sexual orientation, we also include the same harmful practice when it comes to gender identity and expression because, and it bears repeating, homophobia and transphobia kill.

We know that legislation alone is not going to keep LGBTQ2IA people safe, nor will it repair the damage brought. The government must ensure that adequate funding exists for community-led solutions. It is the only way. Whether it is speaking out against hate or against practices that are harmful to the LGBTQ2IA communities in Canada, or in Canada's foreign policy, we must be clear on our values of love and respect, and condemn the bullies and bigots.

When I was writing my speech, I read stories of survivors of conversion therapy. Many were living through their pain, and their voices must be heard. I want to share a few of those stories.

Conversion therapy is not therapy. It is just torture, abuse, and people still need to be educated.

These are the words of a survivor who was forced to take a cocktail of psychedelic drugs and told to smell his feces any time he felt attracted to another man. His story helped convince the City of Vancouver to ban the practice. There are other horrific stories, but out of these stories we know change has already taken place. Folks in the LGBTQ community deserve more. Their human rights matter, like everyone else's.

Today, let us support Bill C-6, but let us go further in ensuring respect and realization of rights for LGBTQ people across our country and around the world.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate those comments. I just have a question.

I feel like we are not answering some of the concerns that other groups have. I am getting emails, not from religious groups but from feminist organizations and LGBT individuals. One email I got from We the Females, a feminist group, is concerned that among young girls gender dysphoria is being overdiagnosed. Young girls who may be confused about their general sense of self or who believe their current personal distress has a simple cause, being the wrong gender, are being overdiagnosed, put on drugs and put on a process that is irreversible.

Does the member have a comment for the people who are concerned about this? This is not related to animosity towards LGBTQ people, but just a concern for kids.

Could the member address this concern?

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

Mr. Speaker, first of all, the member who asked the question has a record of supporting deeply troubling and discriminatory views. We saw that in his leadership campaign. What I would say is that when it comes to—

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Order. The hon. member for Hastings—Lennox and Addington is rising on a point of order.

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

Mr. Speaker, those comments have nothing to do with this debate. They are personal attacks that have been taken out of context and are in fact false. I would prefer that we return to the debate—

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

I appreciate the hon. member's point of order. In this case, I did not hear anything in the comment by the member for Churchill—Keewatinook Aski that would necessarily categorize it in the same way that the hon. member for Hastings—Lennox and Addington has. I will keep an ear open for that. In this case, what the member is speaking of constitutes debate on the question before the House. Perhaps he will have another opportunity in the course of this debate to comment on those issues.

The hon. member for Churchill—Keewatinook Aski can complete her response.

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

Mr. Speaker, frankly, I am flabbergasted at the member's comment. If he is not able to take the heat for what we all know is a very troubling track record, then I am not quite sure what he is doing here.

I have real concern with mis-characterizing organizations as feminist. I am very concerned to hear the kind of framing that the member is using, frankly, to fit his own agenda: an agenda that we know has been of hate and discrimination.

Let me be clear. Trans rights are human rights. The rights of the LGBTQ2IA community are human rights. As members of Parliament in a country like Canada, which commits to upholding human rights, we should be standing up for them. Supporting Bill C-6 is squarely part of that, and we must go a lot further.

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

Mr. Speaker, I very much appreciated my colleague's speech. Like her, I agree with the bill we are debating today.

I recently watched the TV series Ratched, which is set in a psychiatric hospital in the 1950s. In the series, they treat homosexuality with a lobotomy. It really drives the point home that this was happening in the 1950s.

I am shocked to see that in this day and age, gay and trans individuals are still not fully accepted and face a great deal of intolerance. I am very aware of the suicide rate among gay people.

In 2020, this bill is progressive and brings us into the 21st century. What should we do today to make trans and gay individuals feel more accepted? As legislators, what can we do to advance Canadian society even further?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question.

I appreciate what he said about the history of our country. We must learn from history so that the abuse suffered by gay and trans individuals is not repeated.

In my speech, I mentioned several actions that the federal government should take to recognize the rights of members of the LGBTQ+ community here in Canada. We must also ensure federal funding is distributed to support the work being done every day by LGBTQ+ organizations on the ground, in support of marginalized members of their community.

As I said, it is not enough to do this work here at home. For example, we must also implement an international policy that upholds the rights of members of LGBTQ+ communities.

[Paul Manly, Green, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the hon. member, 100%, that sexual orientation and gender identity, SOGI, rights are human rights; and we need to go further as parliamentarians to protect people from homophobia and from horrible practices like the practice of conversion therapy, which is not a therapy it is torture.

In going further, would the member like to see a complete ban? The legislation says that adults going through conversion therapy against their will is banned, but would the member like to see a complete ban of this so-called therapy?

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

Yes, Mr. Speaker, absolutely a complete ban is important. It is very important for us to support the bill but to state very clearly that it must go further. Let us not lose the opportunity that we have right now to do the right thing. Already, the Liberals have waited way too long. I certainly would encourage jurisdictions across the country to continue to do the work they are doing to implement complete bans at their levels of government, but we can be leaders right now and set the bar right now; a complete ban is critical.

As I said, we need to be ensuring that we are standing up for the human rights of the LGBTQ2IA communities here at home and in our foreign policy as well. That is something where we need to see much more leadership from the Liberal government, now and going forward.

[Majid Jowhari, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join second reading debate on Bill C-6, which proposes to criminalize conduct pertaining to conversion therapy, a cruel exercise that stigmatizes and discriminates against Canada's LGBTQ2+ communities.

Bill C-6 proposes the same amendments as a previous bill, Bill C-8. We are committed to ending conversion therapy in Canada and we continue to advocate for that. Conversion therapy is a destructive and discriminatory practice that serves to change a person's sexual orientation or gender identity, the fundamental part of who they are.

Relevant evidence shows individuals have experienced a range of harms. Children are especially vulnerable to the negative effects of conversion therapies and transgender, indigenous, racial minority and lower-income individuals are disproportionately exposed. This bill promotes the equality rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer and two-spirited Canadians by targeting the conduct of the hazardous practices that sends a message that they can and should change who they are, which is wrong.

Canadians value diversity, equality and human dignity. This bill reflects and reiterates those fundamental values. We must move ahead and eradicate this discriminatory practice that is out of step with Canadian values. Many studies have catalogued the harms experienced by people who have been subjected to conversion therapy. In 2009, the American Psychological Association noted that conversion therapy originated in a time when homosexuality was listed as a mental disorder in the American Psychiatric Association's diagnostic and statistical manual.

More recent research shows a wider variety of interventions, including gender role reconditioning, support groups and psychotherapy, as well wide varieties of providers, including both licensed and unlicensed mental health providers in various disciplines, pastoral counsellors and laypersons. Not surprisingly, the science shows that conversion therapy is incapable of achieving this discriminatory end. A person can no more change their sexual orientation or gender identity than they can their ethnicity or other characteristics that define who they are.

As with any bias against individuals based on actual or perceived sexual orientation, gender identity or gender expression, it negatively affects mental health and causes a wide range of serious harms, including decreased self-esteem and authenticity to others, increased self-hatred, confusion, depression, guilt, hopelessness, helplessness, shame, social withdrawal, suicidal ideation, increased substance abuse, feeling of being dehumanized and untrue to self, loss of faith and sexual dysfunction.

Conversion therapy has also been discredited and denounced by many professional associations as a harmful practice, particularly to children. For example, in 2014, the Canadian Psychiatric Association expressed its opposition to the use of conversion therapy, stating that the practice assumes LGBTQ2+ identities “indicate a mental disorder” and that LGBTQ2+ people “could or should change their sexual orientation [or] gender identity”.

The Canadian Paediatric Society has also indicated the practice is clearly unethical and the Canadian Psychological Association, in its policy statement on conversion therapy, opposes the practice and takes note of the fact that scientific research does not support its efficacy. I would like to emphasize that conversion therapy is a very harmful practice to our children, and it is our duty to protect them against such harmful practices.

To be clear, the evidence tells us the persons exposed to conversion therapy have experienced its harmful impacts regardless of whether they were compelled to undergo the practices or sought it out themselves.

Both groups experienced the very same harms, because conversion therapy is aimed at changing a person and not exploring the harmful impacts of stigma and stereotype on a person's self-conduct, which is the foundation for legitimate interventions. Conversion therapy can take many forms, including counselling, behavioural modification and thought therapy and may be offered by professionals, religious officials or laypersons.

Bill C-6 defines conversion therapy as “...a practice, treatment or service designed to change a person’s sexual orientation to heterosexual or gender identity to cisgender, or to repress or reduce non-heterosexual attraction or sexual behaviour.” To be clear, this definition does not capture practices, treatments or services designed for other purposes, such as those aimed at supporting individuals without trying to change them. Furthermore, the legislation clarifies that gender-affirming therapies and treatments are not captured by the definition.

Conversion therapy is predicated on lies and falsehood, such that being homosexual, lesbian, bisexual or trans is somehow wrong and needs fixing. Not only is this belief false, it signals a demeaning and degrading message, which undermines the dignity of individuals and the entire LGBTQ community. In contrast to what others may say, there is no right or wrong when it comes to who one is or who one loves. As mentioned earlier, conversion therapy has been discredited and denounced by professionals and health care associations in Canada, the United States and all around the world. It has no scientific basis or grounding in health care practices.

Bill C-6 proposes to create five new Criminal Code offences targeting conversion therapy. These proposed offences would prohibit: first, causing a minor to undergo conversion therapy; second, removing a minor from Canada to undergo conversion therapy abroad; third, causing a person to undergo conversion therapy against their will; fourth, profiting from providing conversion therapy; and fifth, advertising the provision of conversion therapy. If passed, this bill would make Canada's laws on conversion therapy the most progressive and comprehensive in the world.

Victor Madrigal-Borloz, the UN independent expert on sexual orientation and gender identity, has said that this bill could provide a new international model for dealing with such practices and that this type of more encompassing disposition is probably the very best when it comes to the practices that he has seen around the world.

I implore my colleagues across all party lines today to ensure that we are clear: There is a clear difference between asking someone who they are and telling someone that who they are is wrong and needs fixing.

Supportive teachers, school counsellors, pastoral counsellors, faith leaders, doctors, mental health professionals, friends and family members do not need to fear engaging in the important discussion about someone's identity. These discussions are often critical to personal development. However, what is being targeted here are those who are actively working and providing services designed to change someone's identity based on preconceived notions of who someone ought to be or how someone ought to behave. This bill represents important progress toward ending conversion therapy in Canada and reflects a harmony between progressive policy and constitutional consideration. We must stand together in support to curtail this unscientific and dangerous practice.

In closing, Canada is a country where everyone, regardless of their gender, their gender identity or their sexual orientation can live in equality and freedom. As parliamentarians, this is exactly the legacy we should leave for all of our children, grandchildren and so on. I sincerely hope that all parliamentarians will support this important piece of legislation.

[Matt Jeneroux, Conservative, Edmonton Riverbend, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the member and I worked together at the mental health caucus for two Parliaments and have done a lot of good work there. He just spent the last 10 minutes explaining how important this piece of legislation is, but in the last four years the government has failed to act. It was actually the municipalities that encouraged the government to finally take action on this file.

I am curious to hear his thoughts as to why it took him and his government so long, essentially kicking and screaming, to get to this point and finally bring the legislation forward.

[Majid Jowhari, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it has been an honour to work with the member on the all-parliamentary health caucus. We have effectively worked on that caucus together for at least the last two years to make sure that the impact of mental health on many vulnerable individuals, especially men, in our community is addressed. It is a passion that is shared by both of us.

To respond as to why this has taken so long, the bill was introduced earlier this year. Unfortunately, due to the Speech from the Throne, we were not in a position to debate it fully. Now the bill is in front of us and we are looking forward to debating it and sending it to committee. We are looking forward to having the support of all parties in the House.

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

Mr. Speaker, I really enjoyed my hon. colleague's speech.

I found one aspect somewhat intriguing. Everyone agrees that we need to pass this bill quickly. Some people who have experienced trauma are waiting for us to pass it. However, there are several other pressing issues, including medical assistance in dying. Some of these bills could have been passed a month ago, but the government decided to prorogue the House for five weeks.

Would my colleague agree that we could have used those five weeks to move some of this legislation forward? People are waiting for us legislators to move things forward.

[Majid Jowhari, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that is an important question. It is fair to acknowledge that we are living in very difficult times. COVID-19 has left an impact on not only Canadians but across the world. That is the reason we had to take a pause and really reflect on what we had learned since March or early February, when we became aware of this pandemic. We did that and we did it effectively.

We came back with a very strong Speech from the Throne that talked about mental health. We also now have the opportunity to reintroduce bills such as Bill C-6 and Bill C-7.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, one of the things that we see in terms of what is happening on the ground right now, particularly with trans youth, is marginalization and high levels of violence.

I have heard from some of the Conservatives this continual message that this legislation, which bans the specific act of conversion therapy, will somehow interfere with families being able to talk about these issues and will criminalize professionals who are brought in to work with them. I think it is pretty clear, if one looks at the issue of transgender actions, that there is an entire process of consultation and preparation. The idea that this is going to be criminalized, which some members of the Conservative Party have been trying to say, is creating unnecessary fear.

I would like to ask my hon. colleague about this.

[Majid Jowhari, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my thanks to my colleague for that clarification. As I stated in my speech as well, there is a clear difference between trying to convert someone against their wishes and consulting someone or providing information.

Therapists, school counsellors, various professionals and parents do not have to worry about engaging in a conversation that explores and guides, because this is not being criminalized. It is actually strongly supported because it is a fundamental process that one has to go through to become comfortable with one's own gender or identity, if one needs to do so.

[Rosemarie Falk, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to speak to Bill C-6, an act to amend the Criminal Code, in relation to conversion therapy.

It is my belief that harmful conversion therapy practices are wrong and have no place in Canadian society. No person should be forced or coerced to change their sexual orientation or their gender identity. As we consider this legislation, it is incumbent upon us to examine the actual text of Bill C-6. We must review what is in it or, in this case, what is not in the legislation, because at the end of the day laws will be interpreted and applied based on their written text and not on an expressed intent. It is for that reason that I have serious reservations about the bill.

The legislation lacks a clear definition of conversion therapy. Its definition is so general that it leaves room to be applied broadly. There is very reasonable concern that the legislation could criminalize voluntary conversations and efforts to seek support. It also leaves the door open to infringe on religious expression and parental rights.

As we know, the bill has been reintroduced after it was cleared from the legislative table when the Liberal government unnecessarily prorogued Parliament. It was originally introduced in the first session of this Parliament as Bill C-8. Concerns about the broad definition were raised with the original introduction of the bill. With the clearing of the legislative slate, the Liberal justice minister had the opportunity to fix the definition. It is disheartening that this legislation was reintroduced without addressing these serious concerns.

The justice minister was fully aware of these concerns and made the decision to ignore them. In fact, after the first introduction of the legislation, the Department of Justice put the following disclaimer on its website. It reads:

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.

That statement would not have been offered if there were no need for it. By providing that clarification, there is an implied acknowledgement that the legislation is not clear. Unfortunately, a disclaimer on the department's website is not the same as legislation. That statement takes a position that is not explicitly stated in the bill before us.

There is nothing in Bill C-6 that clearly states that private conversations in which a person expresses their views on sexual orientation, sexual feelings or gender identity would not be criminalized. When a person is struggling or wrestling with life's issues, regardless of what that might be, it is very common to voluntarily turn to a trusted person for support. In fact, we would probably all encourage a person to reach out for help and not go through it and struggle alone. For each person, a trusted person is different. It could be a counsellor, a faith leader, a parent, a teacher, a friend or any person with whom they may feel comfortable.

To have the space for open, honest and real conversation, there cannot be a cloud of legal uncertainty around that conversation. There should not be fear of repercussions for expressing a certain viewpoint, offering counsel or even just having an informal conversation. That does not serve the individual seeking support or the individual offering it. There must be freedom to openly talk to those whom we trust. We must be cautious not to undermine support networks.

In introducing this legislation, the Liberal government has spoken about protecting LGBTQ rights, and it is so important that their rights are protected. I would agree that we should stand up to protect those who have been degraded or dehumanized by harmful conversion therapy practices. That is why, as legislators, we should be committed to getting this bill right and, in that effort, we also have the responsibility to be mindful of the rights of all Canadians.

Without a clear definition, it leaves room for the infringement of other held rights. Parental rights in the guidance of children must be part of this debate, just as freedom of religion and freedom of belief are also a part of this debate. Parents not only have the right but the responsibility of raising their children. That responsibility includes providing food, shelter and clothing for them.

However, parenting goes well beyond providing material needs for a child. Parental guidance is key to a child's development. Moms, dads and guardians help protect the physical and psychological well-being of a child. They also help a child understand and unpack the world around them. We often hear parents of infants and toddlers talk about reliving the world through their child's eyes. A child learns about the world around them and a parent is there to help guide and navigate them.

As a mom, I know first-hand that kids from a very young age will ask their parents an abundance of questions and sometimes they never stop. It does not matter if it is the most basic of questions or something incredibly thought-provoking. Parents are there to offer response and insight.

It is healthy for parents and their children to have open and honest dialogue, and for parents to help children in their understanding of their own emotions. A loving and open relationship between parents and children helps foster self-worth and self-esteem. It is important for children to feel comfortable in coming to their parents when they have questions, struggles or want to talk through or about their feelings.

In a world where we live more and more of our lives online, where kids are exposed to so many outside influences, where kids can be inundated with oversexualized content from a very young age and have access to so much information, whether it is credible or not, we need to have more real conversations between children and their parents, not fewer.

The other concern with the broad definition of conversion therapy in this legislation is its relationship to religious expression. A code of conduct around ethics, morality and sexuality is common among major religions. These are often strongly held beliefs that are studied, instructed and practised by all persons of faith. Faith groups have expressed their worry about how this legislation will be applied to them. Will they remain free to teach and encourage members of their faith community to practise their faith in accordance with their religious teachings, or will this legislation and its application go well beyond criminalizing involuntary, harmful and discriminatory conversion therapy practices?

As I have said, it is my belief that the practice of involuntary conversion therapy is harmful and should be banned, but we cannot ban or police thought and expression. We cannot infringe on religious freedoms and we must respect parents. In an effort to ban the practice of conversion therapy, we cannot needlessly criminalize normal and healthy conversations.

As it is written in the current legislation, the definition of conversion therapy is overreaching, in my view, and it is flawed. It does not strike the right balance between protecting people of the LGBTQ community, parental rights and freedom of religion. By providing a clear definition of conversion therapy, we can provide needed clarity on the scope and intent of the legislation.

I will personally be supporting the bill at the second reading stage so that it can be sent to committee where amendments can be put forward in good faith to improve and fix the current legislation's shortfalls. It is my sincere hope that the Liberal government will be open to amendments so that we can get this right for all Canadians.

[Adam Vaughan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Families]

Mr. Speaker, I have been listening to a number of Conservative presentations and I understand their worry about the potential for criminalizing private conversations between adults and youth, parents and children, teachers and students in this circumstance, as well as ministers or preachers and members of a congregation.

Would members opposite not also agree that some of those conversations can be very difficult? There are teachers who have had inappropriate conversations with youth, and while that situation may not be criminalized, it cannot be entirely inside the scope of this bill or entirely outside of it. It is a grey area that requires study by the committee.

[Rosemarie Falk, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the member and I sit on HUMA together and have studied a lot together.

Almost every conversation is a difficult conversation. Our society has gone so far beyond even communication. We absolutely need to encourage conversations. I would like to see what I had read earlier from the justice department's website, specifically protecting parents, teachers and counsellors, added to the legislation. That would be a very simple fix.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague raises a lot of very important questions, which have been asked by many people in the chamber. We have heard many conflicting reports as to the interpretation of the bill, whether it constitutes individuals having private conversations or whether it prohibits teachers or faith leaders from having conversations and counselling sessions. There have been representations on both sides of the issue.

As she clearly states, the Minister of Justice had foreknowledge that these issues should have been addressed in the bill when it was reintroduced in this session of Parliament. For whatever reason, he chose not to do that, and there needs to be clarity on the issues of the definition and also on the people who are exempted in the bill.

Why does my colleague have confidence in the Liberal government to make these necessary adjustments in committee?

[Rosemarie Falk, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I do not have faith. I have voted against. I do not have confidence in the government, and I am on record for that.

However, if this is truly a team Canada approach and we truly care about the lives of people, we will ensure that this is correct and right so the courts will not throw it out when it comes to that tome. We need to do our due diligence. The Liberals need to work with opposition members even if they do not hold the same views as them. We need to listen to one another intently and actually work together.

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to ask a question on the bill. I fully want to state that I fully believe that harmful conversion therapy should be banned and it should be banned through proper legislation.

The member for Battlefords—Lloydminster mentioned that Bill C-6 was lacking in definition. I relate that to much of the legislation we have had from the government since it first came into power in 2015. The legislation it has been putting forward has been very open to interpretation, court challenges and so on.

I would like to ask the member for Battlefords—Lloydminster if she sees the same possible challenges with this legislation if it is not improved through the process of the committee work, where witnesses and legal opinions can be heard. I would like the member's opinion on that.

[Rosemarie Falk, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Mr. Speaker, we have heard this a lot throughout the day, and throughout yesterday, that the Liberals were delayed in bringing the legislation forward. When they did bring it forward, they decided to prorogue Parliament for scandal cover-ups, and that is the only reason.

We are seeing a pattern. Not a lot of legislation was brought forward even in the last Parliament until the last six months. The Liberals knew an election would be coming soon based on fixed dates. Time allocation was put on everything to get it done and send it through for royal assent. We were asked why we would not agree to unanimous consent motions. That is not what this place does. This place is for us to debate and bring forward the viewpoints of our constituents, the people who we represent. It takes time to do those things, and they should be done thoroughly and thoughtfully.

[Jenica Atwin, Green, Fredericton, NB]

Mr. Speaker, today we are once again talking about the hate that the 2SLGBTQQIA community continues to be subjected to. It is important that I state it that way because that is the truth about what continues to happen in Canada even with the progress we have made. Without adequate protections and legal provisions, Canadians do experience hate, with the pain and suffering that comes along with it.

I cannot wait for the day when everyone in the country will be free to be themselves, celebrated fully, without shame, without fear for who they are, and feel confident that they will be loved and represented in all corners of our society.

Someone once said that if we cannot love ourselves, how are we expected to love somebody else? I have no doubt that our charter supports that intent.

With that in mind, I am honoured to speak to Bill C-6, an act to amend the Criminal Code to include provisions that will limit the negative impacts of conversion therapy in Canada, though it does not go far enough to actually eliminate it.

Last week, I had the privilege of discussing how the rights of 2SLGBTQQIA Canadians were fought for, confirmed and celebrated in recent decades in a response to the ministerial address the day Bill C-6 was tabled. My Green Party colleagues and I will certainly be voting for the bill and when we do, I will be thinking of the people I have met along the way who have suffered conversion therapy and the shame and self-loathing they have had to overcome as a direct result.

Many Canadians, and many members in the House, have seen the biographical drama Boy Erased, describing the journey of a young man from Arkansas who travelled to Tennessee to participate in a conversion therapy program. It is easy for us to hear that story and clearly denote that conversion therapy is wrong. It is easy to tell ourselves that it does not happen here. The truth is that it does; it just flies under the radar. It is more insidious.

I have a constituent, a brave man, who spoke with a CBC journalist a couple years ago to share his story in the hope of helping others. He grew up in a rural New Brunswick community. Outed as a teenager by his browser history, my constituent was sent to a religious counselling service in a nearby town. He was told that he needed to pray for God’s help to change, that what he was feeling was simply a sinful choice.

The counsellor suggested my constituent mentally put his gay feelings in a box and ask God to help keep that box closed. She offered tips to avoid future temptation, tips like “avoid flamboyant situations”. I am so glad he ignored that ridiculous advice. This constituent of mine is a leader in our community and an inspiration for young people today to celebrate who they are. The damage done by his experience with conversion therapy left him to fight feelings of shame through his adolescence and young adulthood.

The truth is that in church basements and family homes across our country children, youth and adults are being taught to hide who they are because it is something to be ashamed of. The real shame here is the damage we are doing to these young minds and hearts. We are limiting their capabilities by stunting their personal growth. We are dimming their light.

The harm that this process causes to people is immeasurable. It reinforces stigma, myths and lies. It has a profound impact on the ability of people to love themselves and to have self-confidence.

There is a recognition worldwide of the destructive nature of this practice and an acknowledgement that criminal law is an appropriate way to address that harm. We are not criminalizing conversations as we have so callously heard in the House. There should be no doubt about what conversion therapy is and our responsibility to stop it from happening.

Yesterday during his intervention, the Minister of Justice said that the purpose of the bill was to criminalize conduct related to conversion therapy. He said that putting an end to conversion therapy would be a reflection of the government’s commitment to eradicating a discriminatory practice that was out of step with Canadian values. He reminded us that multiple professional associations recognized that conversion therapy could lead to various negative impacts on mental and physical health, contributing in some cases to death by suicide. I could not agree more with the minister. We must put an end to conversion therapy.

I cannot help but wonder why we are not going all the way with the bill. Instead, we are leaving the door open for a dangerous loophole.

Bill C-6 would ban the practice of conversion therapy for minors but not for adults. The specific phrasing that one cannot cause a person to undergo conversion therapy against his or her will falls short of providing meaningful protection for the exact Canadians most likely to face pressure from their loved ones to undergo the therapy. Leaving the door open to conversion therapy through the notion that one might choose to engage in this abusive practice means forcing Canadians to make an impossible choice: undergo the experience or lose the love and support of their families.

The bill does take the clear and unequivocal step of precluding someone from profiting from conversion therapy. It makes it impossible to advertise the service, regardless of whether it is provided to minors or adults. If it is wrong, then it is wrong. We know conversion therapy is abusive and cruel. The minister correctly has affirmed that it is a discriminatory practice that is out of step with Canadian values. As parliamentarians, should we not be aiming to uphold the rights of all Canadians to protect their safety and security? When something causes harm, it is a legitimate decision of government to criminalize the practice.

I will actually go a step further. Leaving queer Canadians across the country with the burden of navigating these conversations with their families and expecting them to stand firm against coercion, without the backing of a law that truly denounces the practice, amounts to cowardice. We are leaving these Canadians to confront an issue that we are not bold enough to take on ourselves in the public sphere.

I think of a constituent I mentioned early. I mourn the time he has lost overcoming shame he should never have been made to feel. Together we can make the bill into what it needs to be for all Canadians so no one goes through what he has experienced.

I am looking forward to voting for the bill and I will be tabling amendments to strengthen it at committee stage.

If I can be clear today about one thing, let it be this. Whatever people's identity, be it two-spirit, lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans, queer, intersexual, asexual or otherwise, they belong. Their right to security of the person is as valid as for any heterosexual cisgender Canadian. They are an integral part of our communities across Canada and we are here today to fight with them and for future generations to feel the respect and love they deserve.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments of the member of the Green Party. I want to add some thoughts about the importance of Bill C-6. It is receiving a fairly good response in the House. I anticipate a good majority of members will vote for it. It would be wonderful to see it have a unanimous consent, but I do not think that will happen. We can always be optimistic.

The legislation is one important component. It is a very important step, but also we need to do more than just legislative measures. In an exchange with the Minister of Diversity and Inclusion and Youth, we talked about the importance of capacity and the government committing millions of dollars to build capacity for organizations dealing with advocacy and so forth.

Could my friend provide her thoughts and comments on how important it is that not only do we have legislation, but also do things like build on capacity?

[Jenica Atwin, Green, Fredericton, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I raised this question for the member this morning about providing more investment and services. This is one step absolutely. It is an important step. As I mentioned, I wish it would go further to protect adults as well. I mentioned earlier about the wrap around care that we need. We can do so much more in our society to ensure that people are included and that they are represented and protected.

I highlight once again the need for specializations in trans care, in care that supports the 2SLGBTQQIA community. I am thinking about clinics like clinic 554 in Fredericton. They should be supported. They must continue to do the important work they do. However, we must go much further as well to offer support programs and information within schools across sectors.

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

Mr. Speaker, I think all Canadians are opposed to people being forced to have therapy they do not want. However, when we studied conversion therapy at health committee last year, we had a disturbing conversation.

The gist of it was this. I was describing a youth leader of a youth group whose members were confused about their sexual orientation. The leader was explaining the position of the church with respect to sexuality. I said that if someone voluntarily wanted that advice, would that not be his or her right to get it. The discussion from the NDP and the Liberals was no, that the youth leader should be put in jail. That seemed very offside to me.

Therefore, I am concerned for people's freedom of religion to ensure we narrow the definition so we know that we are talking about conversion therapy that is forced on someone. Is this one of the amendments the member will be bringing forward?

[Jenica Atwin, Green, Fredericton, NB]

Mr. Speaker, the amendments we are specifically discussing within my team focus on protections for adults, which come into play in what the member is bringing up.

What is going to be important is the witness testimony at the committee stage. I am very much looking forward to that, because we need to understand the intricacies and nuances of this conversation. I want to ensure that all Canadians are protected, as well as religious freedom, which is an important piece as well. We will have to wait for the details to emerge at the committee stage.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from Fredericton for her speech, which was once again very relevant, as usual.

She mentioned in her speech that Bill C-6 is designed to protect children and minors from conversion therapy, but she made a very important point about adults who may be vulnerable and could be forced by others around them to undergo this type of conversion therapy.

First, I wonder if she can tell us what kind of vulnerable adults she was talking about.

Second, how can we better support these individuals who could be forced to undergo conversion therapy?

[Jenica Atwin, Green, Fredericton, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my esteemed colleague for this important question.

It is important to understand the power this bill holds. It is certainly important to protect minors in our communities, but this all goes back to the very core issues of the concept of conversion therapy, which is the coercion piece. It is the idea of the pressure someone might feel from their family to go through this at any stage in life, instead of feeling the love and acceptance they deserve. This is the piece I want to highlight again. It should be for all Canadians, regardless of their age. It is also important to mention the piece about not receiving money for this or being able to advertise it.

There is a protection there, but I think it needs to go further to explicitly ban the practice outright so that it protects adults as well.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to Bill C-6, an act to amend the Criminal Code with respect to conversion therapy.

Let me say at the outset and in unequivocal terms that conversion therapy is wrong and it ought to be banned. I am hopeful that all Canadians of goodwill would agree that coercive, forced or otherwise abusive practices targeted toward changing a person's sexual orientation or identity are not only wrong but cause harm. They cause harm to real people, and the effects of such harm are real and profound. Such harm can be life-changing and life-lasting and, in the most extreme cases, can even contribute to suicide. It is on that basis that I believe it is appropriate to clarify in the Criminal Code that such repugnant acts violate the law and that individuals who perpetrate such acts are held accountable to the fullest extent of the law, punishable by the Criminal Code.

That said, while I support the purported objective of Bill C-6, I do have issues with the manner in which the bill in its present form has been drafted, starting with the definition of conversion therapy.

Obviously, when we speak of legislation with the objective to ban conversion therapy, it is important that we get the definition of conversion therapy right. The criminal law is a blunt tool, and it is therefore imperative that any Criminal Code prohibition be targeted toward supported and demonstrated harms arising from conversion therapy. Unfortunately, the bill as presently drafted, based upon the current definition, misses the mark.

In that regard, the definition provided in Bill C-6 is overly broad. Let me quote what the definition in the bill provides. It criminalizes:

a practice, treatment or service designed to change a person’s sexual orientation to heterosexual or gender identity to cisgender, or to repress or reduce nonheterosexual attraction or sexual behaviour.

Based upon that definition, it is clear that the bill is not targeted toward the kinds of forced, coercive, violent or otherwise abusive practices that constitute conversion therapy, all the while potentially capturing a whole lot of other activities, including private conversations that might be had with a parent, child or faith leader. It could potentially criminalize what are otherwise legitimate counselling supports or other psychological supports. When we talk about a definition that criminalizes any treatment or service that reduces or seeks to reduce sexual attraction or sexual behaviour, that is very broad.

Now, the government says that there is no need to worry, that the bill does not target parents, faith leaders or medical professionals who might be having private conversations or who might be otherwise acting in good faith to counsel or assist someone who is going through difficulty with their sexual identity or sexual orientation. In that regard, the Department of Justice website provides a reassurance. Let me read that reassurance into the record. It states:

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.

The Minister of Justice has provided similar reassurances.

Now, while such reassurances from the Department of Justice website and the minister are welcome, what matters in a court of law is not an opinion provided by the Department of Justice with respect to its interpretation of the bill, nor that of the minister. What matters is what is in the bill and what is completely missing from the bill. Completely absent from the bill are any exceptions to protect parents, health professionals, faith leaders and, indeed, any of the groups of people the government, in its own public statements, states that the legislation does not seek to target.

Yesterday in the House, the Minister of Justice hung his hat on an exception provided in the bill. Let me read that exception. It states:

For greater certainty, this definition does not include a practice, treatment or service that relates

(b) to a person’s exploration of their identity or to its development.

That is better than nothing, but I say it is ambiguous, vague, subject to interpretation and insufficient in having regard for the very serious penalties that could arise from breaching this legislation if it is passed, one of which is up to five years behind bars. I hope that when this bill goes to committee, the government will be open to amendments to clarify, in clear and unambiguous terms, that the groups the government says are not targeted will not be targeted and that it is clear in the legislation.

I also suggest that amendments may need to be brought with respect to the definition of “practice, treatment or service”. Those terms are not defined. “Treatment” certainly connotes a therapeutic context, but “practice”, for example, could involve just about any sort of activity.

In conclusion, it is important that for an issue this important we get things right. We must protect vulnerable persons from being subjected to coercion, violence or other sorts of activities that seek to change their gender identity or orientation, while at the same time protecting the parent-child relationship and the doctor-patient relationship, by ensuring that all charter rights are upheld, including freedom of speech, freedom of expression and freedom of religion. We also must guard against legislation that in its current form is arguably overly broad and vague.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the member for St. Albert—Edmonton is obviously from the same province as I am. Knowing that St. Albert, Sherwood Park, Calgary, Edmonton, even the College of Alberta Psychologists have already banned conversion therapy, why does the member think it has taken the federal government so long to get there and why it has not led, but in fact followed, other municipalities and groups?

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

Mr. Speaker, the member for Edmonton Strathcona is quite right that certain municipalities passed bylaws, including my own community of St. Albert. She is also correct in noting that, in response, the Minister of Justice said that it was outside the jurisdiction of the federal government, that it was an issue largely for the provinces to resolve and that the government did not want to legislate it.

Now the government has done an about-face. What its rationale for that is, I suppose we would have to ask the Minister of Justice, but now that the government has acted and we have legislation, it is important that we carefully study it to get it right, to protect vulnerable persons while at the same time ensuring that everyone's charter rights are protected.

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

Mr. Speaker, quite a number of members in this House have said the Minister of Justice made it clear in his remarks or the Minister of Justice said that would not be the case. The House of Commons being the lower house of the legislature of the land, it is incumbent upon all of us to ensure that the legislation actually reflects the intent of the bill. I have raised concern before about the ambiguity that exists in the bill, with the universal acceptance that we want conversion therapy stopped, but the ambiguity that exists needs to be addressed.

I would ask my hon. friend to comment on that.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member is absolutely right that the interpretation or opinion of the minister as to what the legislation provides is insufficient. What matters is what is in the legislation and, in that regard, there is considerable vagueness. That is problematic because legislation that is vague or overly broad violates fundamental justice and will be struck down pursuant to section 7. Surely, the government would not want that.

I hope that the minister is true to his word when he said that he is open to working with the opposition toward amending the legislation where appropriate.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.

I invite my colleagues who have concerns about this bill and who find parts of it to be vague to accept it and have confidence in the work that will be done by committees. We believe that the bill is quite clear. It prohibits causing a person to undergo conversion therapy against the person’s will, causing a child to undergo conversion therapy, removing a child from Canada with the intention that the child undergo conversion therapy outside Canada, advertising an offer to provide conversion therapy, and receiving a financial or other material benefit from the provision of conversion therapy. This seems sufficiently clear to me.

I would like the member to comment on this. He seems to agree with the substance of the issue, that is, the importance of banning this type of practice.

Why does he believe it is important to legalize this?

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

Mr. Speaker, I am a member of the justice committee and look forward to working in good faith to study the bill, to hear from a wide range of stakeholders and to bring amendments.

[Gerald Soroka, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Mr. Speaker, about an hour ago, I asked this same question to a Liberal member. I asked about the clergy potentially getting criminal charges if they were to speak to an LGBTQ person. I was told that they were not going to be prosecutions for any of these violations, yet the member is telling me that, under this proposed legislation, there would be. Could he please clarify that?

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

Mr. Speaker, to my friend for Yellowhead, let me say that the legislation is currently vague in terms of its definition, such that there is a risk, a possibility, that individuals could be prosecuted in precisely the context the member just referenced. That is why I say that if the government is serious, if the legislation does not target and the intention is not to target those sorts of contexts, then surely the government will be open to such amendments.

[Paul Lefebvre, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to rise today to discuss our government's progress on our campaign promise to protect Canadians from conversion therapy.

The Minister of Justice and the Minister of Diversity and Inclusion and Youth have introduced Bill C-6, an act to amend the Criminal Code related to conversion therapy. It is an important piece of legislation, which would ban the shameful practice of so-called conversion therapy in Canada.

In the summer of 2015, the Ontario government passed Bill 77, effectively banning conversion therapy for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender children, and preventing medical practitioners from billing for it. One year later, I met in my office with Rita O'Link, a proud and prominent transgender advocate in my riding of Sudbury, who had led the charge for those changes in Ontario. Rita wondered why the federal government could not do for Canadians what Ontario had done for Ontarians and maybe expand upon it so that all Canadians could enjoy the same protections that Ontarians do.

Since then, I have worked with Rita and others at TG Innerselves in Sudbury to advocate for the rights of the LGBTQ2 community to make clear that, when we say that Canadians deserve to live their lives freely, that means freedom from judgment and persecution. Rita fought tirelessly for free expression for all Canadians and made clear that conversion therapy is a devastating practice that is extremely harmful to those individuals who are subject to it. It is an honour to reference Rita in my remarks today.

Contrary to what some might say, there is no right or wrong when it comes to who one loves or who one is. Conversion therapy has been discredited and denounced by professional and health associations in Canada, the United States and around the world.

Conversion therapy has no scientific basis in health care, and people subject to this practice will experience its devastating effects forever.

Research shows that young people are at higher risk for depression and suicide as a result of efforts to alter their sexual orientation or gender identity. Conversion therapy is based on a lie that being gay, lesbian, bisexual or trans is wrong and that we need to fix it. Not only is this wrong, but it sends a degrading message that undermines the dignity of people of the LGBTQ2 community. Minors, in particular, are adversely affected, and the repercussions of this often continue into adulthood.

In 2020, many believe that this practice is a relic of the past and something that could no longer happen in our communities.

Unfortunately, that is not the case.

Even today, there are groups operating across the country, providing services in an effort to correct or fix those they deem out of step with their own narrow views of how one should be or how one should act. The community-based sex now survey, conducted in 2019-20, indicates that as many as 20% of respondents had been exposed to this vile practice, so we know that this harmful practice is currently happening in Canada.

Our government has introduced this legislation to ensure that no one will have to endure this heinous practice.

I am proud of what the Minister of Justice, the Minister of Diversity and Inclusion and Youth and our entire government are doing to put an end to conversion therapy in Canada.

Our government has introduced the bill, which proposes creating five new Criminal Code offences targeting conversion therapy. These proposed offences would prohibit, first, causing a minor to undergo conversion therapy; second, removing a minor from Canada to undergo conversion therapy abroad; third, causing a person to undergo conversion therapy against their will; fourth, profiting from providing conversion therapy; and fifth, advertising the provision of conversion therapy. It will also define conversion therapy as “a practice, treatment or service designed to change a person’s sexual orientation to heterosexual or gender identity to cisgender, or to repress or reduce non-heterosexual attraction or sexual behaviour.”

If passed, the bill would make Canada's laws on conversion therapy the most progressive and comprehensive in the world, something I think we could all be proud of.

It is important to be very clear, however.

There is a difference between asking someone who they are and discussing it, and telling someone that who they are is wrong and in need of fixing. I can reassure the official opposition and Canadians that supportive teachers, school counsellors, pastoral counsellors, faith leaders, doctors, mental health professionals, friends and family members need not fear engaging in important discussions about someone's identity, discussions that are often critical to personal development. That is actually mentioned, exactly, in the bill as it is written.

What is being targeted here are those who are actively working and providing services designed to change someone's identity based on preconceived notions of how someone ought to be or ought to behave. Criminal law is an important tool to target behaviour that is reprehensible and harmful to others. It creates consequences for those who would continue this work in spite of the clear data that shows how devastating the practice truly is.

This bill is a step forward in eliminating conversion therapy in Canada, and it strikes a balance between progressive policy and constitutional considerations.

I want to emphasize that this is about people. It is about ensuring that every individual can be who they truly are. This is another step toward building the truly inclusive Canada we all talk about. It is clear the legislation is needed, because it is clear not all Canadians can be who they are because of practices like this. That is why it is so important it be banned federally, alongside provincial and municipal bans. Several provinces, such as Ontario, Nova Scotia, Manitoba and Prince Edward Island, have already banned health professionals from offering conversion therapy to minors, and Yukon also has such an act.

The Government of Quebec also introduced a similar bill last week.

A growing number of municipalities in Alberta and across the country have also taken steps to end conversion therapy. I congratulate them on their leadership and I thank them for their efforts.

We will continue to work closely with affected provinces, territories, municipalities and communities so that we can learn from each other and come together to eliminate this harmful practice across our jurisdictions. I hope all my colleagues can look to a national consensus that this abhorrent practice needs to be prohibited and support this legislation.

We will continue working with each other and all members to ensure their voices are heard and our government continues to respond. Canada is a country where everyone, regardless of their gender expression, gender identity or sexual orientation, can live in equality and freedom. That is the kind of Canada we should want to leave for all of our children and grandchildren, the most welcoming country in the world.

A country for everyone.

That is the kind of Canada that four years ago Rita O'Link came to ask me to help her fight for in Ottawa. I am proud to stand today, here in the House of Commons, on behalf of Rita, the courageous Sudburians at TG Innerselves and the thousands of Canadians from coast to coast who work tirelessly to protect the rights of all Canadians.

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

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleagues have been saying over and over how unfounded our concerns are regarding the purposeful ambiguity of the bill's wording. We have been urging the Liberals for months to fix the definition by adding the wording on the justice website, which is much more detailed. It turns out that recently the justice website wording was changed and a single word was added. The word “affirm” is now there.

I hate to seem like a conspiracy theorist, but why was that word suddenly added? Why would they change the justice website and not the actual bill? If this is all on the up and up as they claim, why not change the bill instead of the website?

[Paul Lefebvre, Liberal, Sudbury, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that is a question the member can ask at the justice committee through her members. I am not sure if she sits on the justice committee.

I have heard the debate over the past few days, and it is such an important debate. From the official opposition, we are hearing that the definition is too ambiguous and it should be clarified. Certainly, those suggestions for amendments can be brought to the justice committee. It is a matter of Parliament, so they have that ability.

I also want to reiterate the clause in the definitions section where there is a sentence that says:

For greater certainty, this definition does not include a practice, treatment or service that relates (a) to a person's gender transition; or (b) to a person's exploration of their identity or to its development.

That is very important.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to pay tribute to the incredible team at Timmins Pride, Timmins Fierté, who have done such incredible work of being a voice for the LGBTQ community in the north. They also make Pride in Timmins a celebration, both of their rights and dignity and of the larger community, so that people feel this is an event that everyone can come out to participate in.

What is the importance of these celebrations we have in the north to affirm the rights and dignity of trans people, queer people and bisexual people?

[Paul Lefebvre, Liberal, Sudbury, ON]

Mr. Speaker, similar to Timmins Pride, we have Sudbury Pride, Fierté Sudbury. I participate each year. I am always there with them and I bring my whole family to celebrate who they are and who we are.

As a country, we have a lot of work to get done. Bills like this are indicative of the direction the country is going in: to be more inclusive and to be the most welcoming country in the world. It is important to have these events in small towns like Timmins and Sudbury, and across the country.

Yesterday, I heard my colleague from Spadina—Fort York talk about the Toronto Pride parade, and how transformative it is for people to participate. It is such an honour to participate and support the people organizing such activities.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for my colleague across the way.

It seems that the House unanimously agrees on the fact that we are going to legislate with respect to conversion therapy. However, some small religious groups are putting a lot of pressure on us to slow the process down. Some are even calling for disobedience; I would like to quote Georges Buscemi, president of Quebec Life Coalition, who said, “I cannot speak for the therapists themselves, but when you are doing good and the government says it is bad, I would tend to say you need to do good and face the consequences...even if it means breaking the law.”

I would like to know what my Liberal colleague thinks about statements like that and those types of groups that are considering defying the law by continuing to do something that would now be prohibited. Does he not feel that guidance should be provided to such groups through some form of education?

[Paul Lefebvre, Liberal, Sudbury, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for Drummond for this important question.

Some groups clearly oppose this bill. On the other hand, it is important that we keep the dialogue going with these groups.

The evidence provided to the House and the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights shows the destructive impact these therapies can have on young people.

We have a long way to go with those who do not understand that impact. However, that does not mean we should step back. Rather, it is very important that we move forward and educate. We cannot just sit back and wait for this bill to pass. We need to engage with all stakeholder groups across the country and keep the conversation going.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to stand in the House and speak on the important issue of conversion therapy, and why this practice should be banned in Canada.

Across the country, we have seen many provinces and municipalities take appropriate measures to address this issue, as well as the steps taken by the federal government to introduce this into the Criminal Code.

I have had the honour to participate in multiple conversations with members of the LGBTQ+ community from coast to coast. I have participated in round tables, lectures and, of course, pride parades. Some of my encounters left a huge mark on me personally. Those encounters are what will live with me and have made me an ally of the LGBTQ2+ community.

One of the places I think about from my visits, and that I have spoken about multiple times, is the OK2BME program in Kitchener, Ontario. I was fortunate enough to visit this group, where all the youth are under the age of 19 and come from an area within an hour and a half of that region. They go there to talk about who they were, who they are and how they see their futures. Many go there for a safe place to have a conversation: to talk to people in similar situations to theirs and to rely on people. It is so important we have these types of organizations, opportunities and programs to allow youth to talk to people who are in the same situations they are. Many of them are going through times where they are not expressing who they are to their friends, families or teachers because they are not sure and have a lot of self-doubt. Open places like the OK2BME program are something I will continue to advocate for.

Like the deputy House leader for Parliament, who I see across the way, I grew up in different times. I think of growing up in the eighties and the number of friends I have now who have come out and said they are gay or lesbian. Back in the eighties, I did not know one of my best friends was a lesbian. When I think about it today, does it matter? I love her to the depths of who she is. She is one of the greatest women I know in this world. It does not matter who she loves, because at the end of the day, I love her for who she is. I look at the way her parents embraced her, and they love her for who she is.

However, I know when she goes out in the general public there is that fear of feeling shame. There is that fear of telling people. As I said, I grew up in the eighties, when one did not share that type of information with people. It was expected for girls to like boys. Things have changed, and we have become much more aware that we do not all have to fit in that little box and all be the same.

I also think of the great work being done by PFLAG. A couple of years ago, I went to Richmond Hill and sat down with the PFLAG organization. There were children in the process of transitioning, and children who had just come out to their parents had come to PFLAG with them to have these discussions. We sat down together, ate pizza and celebrated somebody's birthday. It was such an incredible place, where everybody felt safe and that they were part of something.

It made me ask myself whether there was ever a time I felt I was not included. I have been very fortunate, because I am able to go into places and say, “I am Karen,” and that is all good with me. However, a lot of people have self-doubt, which is caused by not being supported for who they are. I think of those people who have to walk alone in the world, and how we can do better. For me, it is important to make sure those safe spaces are available: places like PFLAG, where people can talk in groups and where parents can talk with their children. It is not a mediation, just a place someone can go to listen, talk and hear the stories of other families and the challenges they have gone through.

As a government, it is important we look at continuing to support those types of programs. If we are looking at more actions we need to do after the conversion therapy ban is passed, we need to look at what the next steps are in order to make sure we can get this work done. I say this because we need to look at the mental health component of this issue.

Mental Health Awareness Month is going on right now, and we have to understand the correlation between mental health and the LGBTQ community. I looked at some of the statistics, and I sat back and thought about how that was not me. According to statistics, one in four members of the LGBTQ community who are students has been physically harassed, and six in 10 have been verbally abused. That means over half of the people have been victimized at some time just because of their sexuality. There is no place for that.

We have to look at the fact that people in this community have been body shamed. They feel isolated. Discrimination and bullying occur. There is a lack of support from some families. We know that not every family is 100% on board, and that comes with time as well. I am very hopeful. I am that Pollyanna who believes that we can do better and that we can have hope, so I believe in helping families go through these challenging times together. We have to be realistic: these things happen. We also have to look at the predisposition toward mental health challenges as well. I think that, if people are already uncomfortable with who they are, it is just adding onto it regarding their sexuality. There is a double prong here that is attacking them.

I also think of a couple of friends I sat down with about a month ago. We were talking about sexuality. My two friends are partners, Rick and Lee, and they do not know I am talking about them today. Rick and Lee and I have these really open discussions, and it is great, because we are in the same generation. I love to talk to them about music and cooking and everything, but after a really broad discussion I asked them how it was, growing up in the eighties. My one friend, Rick, said that he would not be here if he had come out in the eighties. He would not have been able to survive. He stated he would have taken his own life.

I think about where we are in 2020. How can people feel that they would have to take their own lives because of being members of the LGBTQ community? How could someone feel so lost and isolated that life was not worth living, just because of their sexuality? This has to be moved out of that frame. That is, not for me, a place that we can be in. This is where we have to understand that love is love, and I will continue to advocate on that.

I look at Lee, who is Rick's partner. They have been married for a number of years, and he said to me that he dated lots of girls, but as soon as he was done high school he went on and actually was himself. I think we have to understand, especially if we are looking at our teens, that when people are in high school, they are in a fish bowl. I went to a school of about 800 students in St. Thomas, Ontario, and everybody knew everybody's business. Once people are able to get into the real world, where there are not 800 people walking by and seeing what their business is, it may be a bit easier for them to live their lives with freedom, but we know, especially in those teenage years, that it is really difficult.

It is such a hard time to fit in, as it is. Everybody is on Twitter. Everybody is on Instagram, Facebook and TikTok. I have watched it a couple of times, but everybody is on there. Life is cycling so quickly now for our youth, and there are already so many mental health challenges that they are coming across, so adding sexual orientation is something that should not have to be part of that conversation any longer. They should be accepted, and they should be loved for who they are.

Do I have two minutes? I could talk for 20. It is really bad when my friends on their side are trying to quiet me up, because they think I talk so much. Regardless, I think that is what makes me a good advocate: if one is willing to talk and have these conversations, that is what it is.

I think when we talk about conversion therapy, there has been a lot of discussion on what that actually is. For myself, talk therapy is what I do. I talk things out. Some people may say that talking is conversion therapy, or that it is something else. For me the ability to talk and work through my problems with the people I love and respect the most is important, regardless of how difficult those topics are. As a parent, I have had multiple difficult situations brought upon me or that I have had to discuss, and we all need that person and that support group around us. Being able to talk is really important.

I see that many members, and I have heard members of the government also, indicate there is that concern about religion. I will be honest: I was mad at my husband about six years ago, and the first person I turned to was my pastor. Members would not see me as a really strong religious person, but the pastor was the person who knew me. He knew me and my family sitting in the benches, where we sat as a family all the time, and I was able to speak to him as a confidant. I think sometimes that is where the confusion will come from, in this discussion. He was not trying to convert me: he was a confidant because he knew who I was. He has seen me actively participate in the church, youth groups and a variety of things like that, so I am proud to speak on this. I think we should all have this really important discussion, because at the end of the day, every life matters, especially those of the LGBTQ community.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

I see there are members interested in posing questions and comments, but we will have to wait until after question period and members' statements for that.

Now we are going to statements by members. The hon. member for Bay of Quinte has the floor.

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

[Ginette Petitpas Taylor, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to thank my fellow PROC member for her very thoughtful speech. Just before question period, she made reference that some of her colleagues think that she speaks too much, but I could have listened to her for the day, and I thank her so much for her comments.

The member indicated in her speech that PFLAG in her community does some very important work. In my community of Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, in 2015, I had the privilege of meeting an organization called UBU. Its founder, Michelle Leard, really educated me on the need for these types of services.

During her speech, the member also indicated that we need to elaborate on the next steps in order to ensure that people feel more comfortable with who they love and who they are, and to be who they are. I wonder if the member could elaborate on what she thinks those next steps look like.

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

Mr. Speaker, I really appreciate that question from my colleague on the PROC committee and the work that we can do together.

I think that there is a place for everybody, and there need to be those safe places. When I look at the associations that are starting in high schools and at community groups, they are all great initiatives, and we need to make sure that we make those types of investments. It may just be a time investment that we need to make. It does not necessarily always need to be financial, but we need that time investment so that we can be there to listen, always be onside and make sure that we hear from everybody who is part of this group. Really, it is time for conversations and time for great talks.

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

Mr. Speaker, in listening to the debate thus far, it seems that the vast majority, if not all, members recognize that conversion therapy is just wrong, and that is really encouraging. It is really important to recognize that all parties, except for the Conservative Party, recognize it as a whipped vote, in other words, as a political entity, the party feels it is not optional.

I wonder if the member thinks it would be better for the Conservative Party collectively to make that statement by saying it is a whipped vote.

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

Mr. Speaker, we are asking for amendments to the legislation. As I mentioned in my speech, it is the confusion about whether talk therapy is conversion therapy or the talk therapy I do where we can have real dialogue and discuss the issues.

We know the legislation is not perfect and we are concerned about it moving forward. When this gets into the court system, judges will have to decide how to interpret it. There needs to be more clarity. Those are some of the concerns I have with this legislation. It is really hard when we know the clarity is not there.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there is an interesting aspect with regard to the Conservative logic. Some Conservatives claim they are against it. They say they may have to vote against it going to committee to work on those things. I do not understand the Conservative logic about not applying the vote across the entire party to get it to committee so it can study those things.

How does the member reconcile the fact that if Conservatives vote against it, it cannot even go to committee to be amended?

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

Mr. Speaker, we talk about this debate being divisive. I wish I would be asked a question that actually matters when it comes to the LGBTQ community, not one that is so politicized as that one.

I will make every effort I can to ensure we have a real and valid conversation. I find that question irrelevant. I will continue to be an ally for the LGBTQ community. That is what I can do. Let us take the politics out of this and actually talk about the people.

[Matt Jeneroux, Conservative, Edmonton Riverbend, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I hope to ask a legitimate question that brings it back to the people.

The Liberals have stood time and time again today to give speeches, indicating that we have waited far too long for the legislation. The Liberals have been in government for five years now and many municipalities have told them they cannot wait any longer and have created their own legislation.

I am curious what the member thinks about why we have to bring the government kicking and screaming into this conversation when many municipalities have already done this.

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

Mr. Speaker, just a few months ago, or it may have been a year ago, a petition was put forward. Many people were working on an electronic petition, one of about three. The government had decided that it was provincial jurisdiction. We looked at the municipalities. We looked at Vancouver, Ontario, Quebec and different provinces across the country. It is interesting that the Liberals have decided to engage now. It is a minority government. It wants to build a wedge.

Unfortunately, that is my conclusion on that, but we could do better. At the end of the day, I do not disapprove of the legislation, but we need to do better. I just wish it was not brought forward this way.

[Emmanuella Lambropoulos, Liberal, Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to speak on Bill C-6, an act to amend the Criminal Code so as to criminalize behaviours linked to conversion therapy in Canada.

The bill seeks to protect LGBTQ2 kids and teens from the long-term harmful effects of conversion therapy, a range of dangerous and discredited practices that falsely claim to change a person's sexual orientation. Passing the bill will send a strong message to people in the LGBTQ2 community that they are valued and protected by its government, that they are free to be who they are and that there is nothing wrong with them.

For those wondering, conversion therapy aims to change an individual's sexual orientation to heterosexual, 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.

It is rooted on the wrongful premise that sexual orientation, gender identity and gender expression other than heterosexual and cisgender can and should be changed. That in itself should tell us that this therapy is harmful as it tells people that they should not be happy within their own skin, that they should not love and accept themselves for who they are. That in itself is cruel.

Bill C-6 proposes to add to the Criminal Code five new offences linked to conversion therapy: causing a minor to undergo conversion therapy, moving a minor abroad with the intention that the minor undergo conversion therapy, causing a person to undergo conversion therapy against their will, profiting from conversion therapy, and advertising an offer to provide conversion therapy.

The bill also authorizes courts to seize documents containing advertisements for conversion therapy and to delete those advertisements from computer systems and the Internet.

It is important to note that these amendments would not criminalize those who provide affirming support to people who are struggling with their sexual identity or orientation, such as teachers, therapists, parents, friends, etc. For example, if a little girl tells her parents that she is a lesbian and her parents bring her to a therapist to affirm that this is in fact the case and that it is not just a phase or a one-time experience, or if the child is confused or unsure about her sexual orientation, a therapist can provide to the child the help to figure things out, without denying the way that she feels.

Conversion therapy can take on various forms, including counselling, behaviour modification and, in more severe cases, electric shock therapy. We might as well throw in a lobotomy at this point. These archaic methods being used on children are incredibly harmful and have been proven to be completely ineffective. These practices have been rejected by every mainstream medical and mental health organization for decades.

Every leading health organization, including the Canadian Psychological Association, the Canadian Psychiatric Association, the Canadian Pediatric Society, the American Psychological Association and the American Psychiatric Association, have denounced efforts to change sexual orientation or gender identity and claim that attempts to do so can result in serious health risks.

Maclean's published the opinion piece of Peter Gajdics, a man who lived through six years of conversion therapy and one of the main activists who pushed for the city of Vancouver to become the first Canadian city to ban it.

Peter was subjected to copious amounts of psychiatric medications, was told to release his pain and feel his rage during long sessions of primal scream therapy and injected weekly with ketamine hydrochloride before his reparenting sessions, where he would lie in his therapist's lap like a newborn baby so he could be nurtured by his new parent. Aversion therapy was also used. His therapist exposed him to a stimulus while subjecting him to a form of discomfort to help him flip to the other side. According to him, all conversion therapy succeeded in doing was increase his shame about who he was.

Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transsexual, queer and two-spirited people are harmed and stigmatized. Their dignity is undermined. These practices have resulted in tragic rates of depression, anxiety, self-hatred, drug use, homelessness and suicidal behaviours among the LGBTQ2 community, among people who have undergone conversion therapy. Indigenous peoples, racial minorities and low-income Canadians are more likely to be exposed to these harmful practices. Minors are especially vulnerable.

Conversion therapy heightens the shame and stigma that so many LGBTQ2 youth already feel. Although this bill is a big step in the right direction, it will not completely eliminate the harm caused by social stigma, which, unfortunately, will not go away overnight. It will likely continue more secretively; for example, a child would be told to act a certain way or to not act a certain way at home.

A study from San Francisco State University showed that LGBTQ2 young people who are highly rejected by parents or caregivers are eight times more likely to attempt suicide, six times more likely to report high levels of depression and three times more likely to use illegal drugs.

As my colleagues can imagine, parents who send their child to conversion therapy instill feelings of family rejection and disappointment in their child and risk damaging their relationship with their child for life.

I taught several subjects at the high school level for several years prior to getting elected. While my major at McGill was in history, and I enjoyed teaching that course very much, my favourite was ethics and religious culture. I had the flexibility in that class to teach whatever topics I thought would be interesting and relevant to my students, so I chose to teach them about topics that would help them navigate their way through high school and their teenage years. Among the many topics we covered were sexual education and gender identity. At the time, I guess around six years ago, I knew that my Secondary II, or grade 8, students were figuring themselves out and that many of them likely had questions that they would never feel comfortable asking, especially at such a young age.

I wanted to offer them a safe space, to let them know I was an ally and that they could open up to me if they needed to chat. Lo and behold, some of my students did feel comfortable opening up and coming to see me one on one for guidance. While I do not yet have children of my own, I really cared about my students. My heart would have broken to think of them not loving themselves or not embracing who they were because of external pressures or because of not being accepted by their families. They were at such a critical age, and were highly influenced by what others thought of them. To think of the pain they would experience going through any type of conversion therapy is unbearable.

I know that health falls under provincial jurisdiction, and we cannot ensure that conversion therapy will not be practised without the help of the provinces, territories and municipalities. That is why our government will work with provincial counterparts to bring conversion therapy to an end in Canada. I am interested in seeing all parties work together at committee to come up with the best possible legislation, to protect the LGBTQ2 community and to ensure that everyone would benefit from the protection that this bill offers.

Each and every one of us should have the right to be who we are, and to love who we love without being ridiculed or tortured for it. While this bill will not end homophobia or transphobia, it is an important step in the right direction. I want my future kids to grow up in a world where they can be loved and accepted: one in which their sexual orientation or gender identity does not determine their love and acceptance, and where they can be proud of who they are and live fulfilled and dignified lives.

I strongly support this bill, and I hope that all of my colleagues across the aisle will vote in favour of this legislation to help make Canada a better and fairer place for all Canadians.

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

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague on her speech.

She urged all parties to work together to have as much support as possible for Bill C-6.

We understand that conversion therapy is completely unacceptable in this day and age. If the government would be open to a better definition of conversion therapy and including in the bill what was on the Department of Justice website, more Canadians would be likely to embrace what is proposed in the bill, which is absolutely necessary in today's society.

Will the member support us and work to get this definition included in the bill?

[Emmanuella Lambropoulos, Liberal, Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question.

I do not sit on that committee, but I am confident that all members will work together to really make this legislation the best it can be and ensure that it protects as many people as possible.

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

Mr. Speaker, I really enjoyed my colleague's speech, especially the reference she made to having the trust of her students as a teacher.

Does she think a bill like this could help her students? Would this bill give her an additional tool to help her better support her students?

[Emmanuella Lambropoulos, Liberal, Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my students are now adults. Some of my students have given me feedback on Facebook. In my opinion, they are strongly in favour of the bill and totally against conversion therapy. That is my response.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we support this bill. We know that the ban on conversion therapy is important and it says to members of the SOGI community, especially to transgender and non-binary youth, that they are not in need of fixing. I want to thank the member for her speech, but also ask her about this bill being long overdue. It alone is not enough to repair the damage that has been done by conversion therapy.

Will the Liberals commit to investing in, and funding capacity building within, the SOGI community so that challenges as a result of conversion therapy can be addressed within the community?

[Emmanuella Lambropoulos, Liberal, Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I think this is an important first step and a significant one. In committee, I am sure members will hear of different ways they can better the lives of the LGBTQ2 community. I would love to provide any support we can give. I hope other members throughout the House feel the same way.

[Jenica Atwin, Green, Fredericton, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for her speech and acknowledge our love of teaching. The member mentioned this was a protection for children and teenagers. I want to highlight the critical stage of 18- to 21-year-olds in affirming their identities and figuring out who they are. I also want to point to the high risk of suicide for people in mid-life who are dealing with some of these issues.

Should we not extend this protection to adults, as well? I would like to hear what she thinks about that.

[Emmanuella Lambropoulos, Liberal, Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would personally be open to it, but I know there are some reservations because of charter protections. The way it is currently written, only consenting adults would be able to receive conversion therapy; however, actually giving conversion therapy would be illegal. There are many different ways of interpreting the way this bill is written. I hope in committee these things can be ironed out and more discussions can be had to better the legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am also interested to know about the member's previous role as a teacher. I visit my students in Kitchener—Conestoga regularly, and now virtually. It is amazing how much we can learn from this next generation with stories about reconciliation and the environment. I wonder if she could share the message of acceptance this next generation is sending us.

[Emmanuella Lambropoulos, Liberal, Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I came from a school with a wide array of backgrounds and a lot of my students definitely felt comfortable expressing themselves and being different. It was a good thing to be unique at that school. I definitely think our generation has a lot to learn, and I hope that this generation can teach future generations yet again to open their minds and to make the world a better place for everyone.

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by confirming that the Bloc Québécois will wholeheartedly support Bill C-6 on conversion therapy.

In our opinion, conversion therapy has always been disrespectful toward our young people and it is perfectly legitimate to do away with it. In fact, I would say it is high time we did something about this.

Bill C-6 concerns children under the age of 18, the advertising of an offer to provide conversion therapy, forcing someone to undergo conversion therapy against their will and material benefit from providing conversion therapy. Once the bill is passed and the law takes effect, it will no longer be possible to cause a child to undergo conversion therapy. That is perfect, because that is what we want.

Yesterday, I heard some Conservative members saying that we should not prevent a father from having a healthy discussion with his son about the son's sexual orientation or a teacher from having such a discussion with a student. That is not at all what this bill is about. It is important to understand that because it could change the way members vote on this bill.

Let me draw a parallel with other crimes. For example, robbing a bank is a crime. Similarly, forcing a 12-year-old boy to undergo conversion therapy would be prohibited, if the bill passes. Conspiracy to rob a bank is also a crime. Hopefully conspiring to force a minor to undergo conversion therapy will also be considered a crime.

However, if a teacher discusses the importance of not stealing and the importance of honesty with his or her students, that would not be a crime. If a teacher discusses how bank robberies are carried out and various possible scenarios with his or her students, that is not a crime. These things are taught in police academies. Talking about a bank robbery is not the same as conspiring to rob a bank. Similarly, having a discussion with a child about sexual orientation or conversion therapy is not a crime nor is that, in itself, conversion therapy.

Imagine that a child tells his parents or a teacher that he heard conversion therapy is available in such and such a U.S. state and he wants to go there to get treatment. In that case, the parent or teacher could tell him that type of therapy is against the law, but they could also have a healthy discussion with the child and find out why he wants to undergo such therapy.

I have met people who had a lot to say about conversion therapy. They told me about a watchful waiting approach and that sounded like a good idea to me. The idea is to listen to the young person who has questions about their sexual orientation or gender identity. By getting them to talk, we might help them to better understand themselves, but we must resist influencing them, because that is not allowed.

When a young girl feels like a young boy or a young boy feels like a young girl and wants to wear a dress, is that a bad thing, something that needs to be fixed? Bill C-6 says no.

We must let children be children. We must let them live their lives. It is healthy and normal to wonder and ask questions. Adults should not be attempting to change a child's gender identity or sexual orientation. I find this to be not only legitimate, but also highly advisable.

In fact, it is so advisable that a bill was introduced in the National Assembly of Quebec just last week. Bill 70 regarding conversion therapy was introduced last Thursday. However, since Quebec is very respectful of jurisdictions and does not want to interfere in criminal matters, it will not tell Ottawa what is or is not a crime. Still, Quebec does have legal jurisdiction over professional associations. It said it would amend the professional code and that a professional who provides conversion therapy would be committing an act derogatory to the dignity of his or her profession and therefore could be disciplined by his or her professional organization. Personally, I applaud this bill.

I hope it will pass in Quebec, because it is in the same vein as our Bill C-6. We want to let kids be kids. We do not want to stop them from questioning. It is healthy to question, and we want them to be able to do so.

I want to make a final point about the religious aspect of conversion therapy. That phrase comes up a lot in conversations about religious extremism. I am not targeting any particular religion, but the leader of any religion, whether we are talking about imams, priests, parish priests or rabbis, have a lot of influence on their flock, as we say back home. These people also need to respect a potential ban on conversion therapy. They are not prohibited from having discussions on the topic, but they are prohibited from trying to influence parishioners.

We have to make that distinction. Based on what I have heard so far, this may be our main sticking point. Members must not confuse the right of a parent or teacher to have a healthy discussion about gender identity or sexual orientation with the act of trying to influence a person's gender identity or sexual orientation.

I will stop there. I hope we can all agree and pass this bill quickly at second reading so that the committee can study it and it can be brought into force.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is encouraging to see support for this legislation from members of the Bloc. The member raises a number of concerns. I think those will be dealt with after the bill gets through second reading and goes to committee. It should be an interesting committee, to say the very least, as I am sure it will want to hear a number of presenters. The minister himself has indicated his willingness to listen to what opposition parties have to say.

I am wondering if the member could indicate whether the Bloc has some amendments in mind at this time.

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

I think we both want to achieve the same thing with this bill.

As to amendments the Bloc Québécois might propose, I cannot answer that question today. We usually have some. There are often little last-minute changes, but that does not really worry me. Insofar as we agree on the broad strokes, I think we will be able to agree on what one might call the finer points of the bill.

[Ron Liepert, Conservative, Calgary Signal Hill, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I heard the member mention on several occasions what this legislation does not prohibit. He mentioned, for example, consultations with teachers and religious leaders. I am wondering if he would be in favour of an amendment that would put into the legislation what it does not prohibit.

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, let me first clarify something. My colleague mentioned that I had said that consultations with teachers would be allowed. That is not at all what I said. We are not talking about consultations. When we talk about consultations, we are talking about therapy. I was saying that the bill does not ban conversations.

That said, I think the amendment proposed by my colleague could be very dangerous. Based on a principle of legal interpretation, when examples are given, this defines a concept, and anything not defined is therefore excluded. An enumeration, then, is always dangerous. One must be very careful, for it is a doubled-edged sword. At this stage, I do not think there is any point in enumerating what would not be prohibited.

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my hon. colleague's support for this legislation, which we in the NDP support as well. He spoke about feedback he has received from his constituents. Has my colleague heard from anyone who felt the proposed bill does not go far enough? If so, in what ways do his constituents feel the bill fell short of the mark?

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would tell my colleague that there are always people who think a bill does not go far enough and others who think it goes too far. What is important is to find a compromise, some middle ground. I think that Bill C-6 as it stands now is right in that middle ground, between the different points of view. It is important for children to be able to grow up without being influenced or without someone trying to turn them into someone they are not. However, it is also important for society as a whole to be able to discuss issues. We must find a balance in our measures.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague from Rivière-du-Nord. I very much admire his ability to make such measured speeches. I have a quick question for him.

I get the impression that, as with Bill C-7, people will vote to please certain religious groups. I do not believe that to be the best approach.

Could my colleague from Rivière-du-Nord talk about the right way to vote on a bill that has this kind of moral impact?

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Jonquière. I am pleased to know that I have such a big fan. That is something.

That being said, I think there’s a risk of starting down a slippery slope if we vote the way one religion or another wants us to.

We need to be careful. Religions of all kinds are important. I think that they have a positive impact on many people. I am pleased that there are religious communities, but they should not be telling us how to legislate. That would be a problem and would create conflicts that could never be resolved.

I therefore encourage members to be very careful about making a decision centred on religious beliefs rather than on the facts before us.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a great privilege to speak today on Bill C-6, an act to amend the Criminal Code to criminalize conversion therapy. I also want to say it is an honour to follow the member for Rivière-du-Nord and his excellent comments, as well as my colleague, the member for Saint-Laurent.

I will begin by thanking the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Diversity and Inclusion and Youth for their tremendous work in bringing forward these amendments. They have given members of this House a rare opportunity not only to make lives better, but to save lives. That is work that none of us should take lightly. When this bill ultimately passes, it will make us all proud to be Canadian, and proud to be thoughtful, compassionate and just human beings.

Cutting to the chase, I am going to begin with a very personal story. From a very young age, I knew I was different. I saw the world differently from my friends, and experienced relationships with them differently. My earliest memories of that go back to the age of four or five, when gender norms simply did not align with my view of the world. Toys that I was told I should play with did not interest me, games and activities the other boys loved left me indifferent. My affiliations with boys, while strong and important, left me worried and sometimes afraid. Girls were simply easier, and left me feeling less complicated, less conflicted and more comfortable. Still, I wanted to be the best little boy in the world and did everything I could to be just that.

As I grew up and approached adolescence, my family and friends could tell I was different from other boys in the neighbourhood. Rather than trying to channel me into one way of being, they stood back a notch, were open to conversation, watched and allowed nature to take its course. In adolescence, these relationships with boys became even more scary and girls became even more comfortable for me to spend time with.

While I thought that was a sign, many seemed to think this was a sign of an emerging ladies' man, a very dated term, I recognized nothing could have been further from the truth, as is obvious today. Of course I played the game. In the 1960s and 1970s, it was simply too horrendous to even imagine being anything but a ladies' man. I dated, but preferred to do so in groups. I had girlfriends, and I now realize they were long-suffering ones. I had intimate relationships with women, but it was never me. It was someone others hoped I would be, someone others thought I would be, but it was not me.

Wanting to be the best little boy in the world, I did not want to disappoint. I filled my life with events and activities. I kept myself busy on the rowing team, skiing, being a political organizer and organizing events. I would hope to be able to plead being too busy when asked why I was not settling down with the right girl. Meanwhile, I was in a personal hell. My attractions to men were real, and I was in deep conflict.

In my early 20s, I finally sought help. I asked to see a United Church minister, not my own but a neighbouring clergyman. Don White agreed to see me, and I poured out 20 years of feelings, thoughts, anxieties and pain to him. He listened. He did not judge. This was in the late 1970s. While legal, homosexuality was far from accepted. Gay men and lesbians were made fun of, shunned and often hated. We could lose jobs, families, homes and even our lives. However, Don White listened. He recognized I was in great pain and with his wonderful wife, Barbara, they helped me find a therapist to talk to.

However, that therapist did not listen, he judged. He told me I had a choice to make, between an easy life of acceptance, career success and of being a father like he was, or I could follow my instincts and have a life of misery and pain, professional risk and of disappointing my family. It simply did not line up with who I knew I was at my core.

I went back to Don White who listened and simply held me. He said that, yes, my life would be more difficult if I came out as a gay man but that I had to trust my instincts, and he would do what he could to help.

It would take a few more years until I told my parents. Finally in the summer of 1983, I met with them and talked with them. They were liberal to the core, loyal and liberal to the core, of the good United Church tradition. I never doubted that they would love me, but I was still worried. I sat down and said I had something important to tell them. I started to cry. My mother asked me if she could ask me a question. She asked if I thought I were gay. I said that I knew I was gay. She said, “Oh, thank goodness, I was worried you had cancer or that something awful had happened.”

We laughed, and both my parents embraced me and said they would do whatever they could to make my life happy and healthy. A few years later I would have to tell them I had cancer, and they held me the same way and loved me just as much.

Not every child has a parent like I had. Not every young gay man or boy, young lesbian, two-spirited person, bisexual or transperson has a parent like I had. They do not have a church or a pastor like I had, or teachers or mentors or employers or colleagues or friends or a community like I had. In fact, many have the opposite experience.

That is why we need the amendment to the Criminal Code proposed in Bill C-6. We need to protect the most vulnerable when they need it the most. We need to ensure that every person in this country knows they are free to be who they are and to become their own self as God or nature intended them to be, free to live, love and express themselves in ways true to their very core.

This bill is more than symbolic. It is very real in its impact. It would criminalize activities designed to attempt to change one's identity, no more than that, and suppress or reduce their same-sex attractions or sexual behaviours. It would ensure that no one can cause a minor to undergo a therapy designed to change who they are or how they feel. It would ensure they do not have to undergo such processes against their will. It would ensure that no one could make money from these so-called therapies. These are real and critically important measures that the government is recommending.

This bill also carries symbolic weight, and that is what I think scares some in the opposition who may be inclined to vote against it. I heard the Leader of the Opposition express his concerns about conversion therapy, and I thank him for that. I also heard him wiggle around and try to support the far right wing of his party. I think they are worried about this bill because it normalizes LGBTQ people. It says that we are okay. It says that we do not need to change and should not be forced to change. It continues the long evolutionary process, which began in the 1960s by the late Pierre Elliott Trudeau, of telling me and showing me that I am okay.

My hope is that opposition members will read the very fine speeches by the member for Calgary Nose Hill and the member for Elgin—Middlesex—London to ensure that we are unanimous in sending this bill to the next step. It is why I decided to tell my personal story today. However, it is not just my story. It is the story of a significant portion of our population who needs to hear from the House and the government not only that nothing is wrong with them, but that it is wrong for people to try to change them from being who they are.

We have come a long way since former prime minister Trudeau opened the legal door for people like me. Even since, the Prime Minister offered an apology for the way successive governments, Liberal and Conservative, have treated people like me. However, we still have a long way to go.

I read with interest that the new Parliament of New Zealand is the gayest parliament in the world, now with 9% of its members being from the LGBTQ community. It surpassed the U.K., with its 7%, or 45 members. Our House has only four openly gay members, or just slightly over 1%, which does not look at all like the Canadian population. It is still lonely for those of us who are different. Perhaps the bill would be a little easier to pass if the House and our government looked and sounded just a little more like Canada. Let us all work on that.

I close where I began, thanking the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Diversity and Inclusion and Youth for bringing these amendments forward. I thank hon. members for taking the time to read this bill and talk to the community, and for some of the very magnificent speeches I have heard. I also thank people for listening so well today. I think many of my colleagues, who may not have lived my story but have now heard it, are now helping all of us. I thank them and am glad they are prepared to act.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for having the courage to share his story.

There is one thing that concerns me from listening to the debate today: It is clear that private conversations are not necessarily protected in the bill. The member has had conversations with ministers, and others have had the same types of conversations and have chosen differently, which is their right. I know that ministers in my riding are very concerned not only about private conversations, but about the fact that the bill does not protect their right to speak in a public square about the things they feel, whether or not they are the opinions of others.

I wonder if the member would be willing to support an amendment to clarify in this legislation the need for private conversations and the need for ministers to be able to speak in a public square as they wish.

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

Mr. Speaker, I cannot say I would support that kind of amendment, because I think it is very dangerous. I think this legislation is very carefully worded to ensure that those kinds of conversations can happen.

Conversations can generally happen, absolutely. What this legislation does is ensures that no harmful conversations directed at changing someone's sexual orientation will get in the way of someone's full and natural development. That is what this is about.

This calls into question what happens when rights bump into each other, and I will take the side of the most vulnerable. I will take the side of those who are most likely to be hurt. I think this legislation does that, and I would urge the clergy to get in line with it.

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for that wonderful testimony. It shows that, when it comes to identity issues, it is always better to accept someone than to turn one's back on them. I think that goes without saying.

However, I find this debate has taken on a 1960s vibe. Members are trying to sell this, when it is an issue that should have been dealt with a long time ago.

Obviously, we support this bill. Conversion therapy is something that does not make sense. There is an industry of sects that organize large church services where they try to pray the gay away. There is nothing therapeutic about those services. Of course, it does not make any sense. There is nothing medical about them and they cause more problems than they solve.

I would like to know why something like this was not done before. Why, in March 2019, did the government say that this was impossible? The government said that it was impossible to ban this type of therapy.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his question.

I think it is a process. This is a big step forward for the liberation of people who are gay, lesbian and trans, and I think it is necessary to do something differently at each stage.

I have a lot of patience for my colleagues from all parties, who can change their minds about the opportunities everyone should have. All people must have a chance to make a big change, and I hope that is another step we will take with these amendments.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have had the pleasure of serving with the hon. member for the better part of a decade, and I want to thank him for a powerful, emotionally affecting and very courageous speech that really spoke to the profound importance of this bill. It also highlighted how damaging and dangerous stigmatization is.

I want to pivot to something else. In another piece of federal legislation or policy, there is a ban on blood donations from men who have sex with men, which is not based on science but on stereotype. We allow a sexually promiscuous heterosexual man who engages in dangerous activities to donate blood, but two gay men in a loving, stable, monogamous relationship are not allowed. The government still maintains a ban that stops men who have sex with men from donating blood, based on the most base stigmatization.

I wonder if the member would agree with me that it is time to end this discriminatory ban.

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

Mr. Speaker, I agree 100%.

Not long ago, earlier in the year, I walked by Northlea Public School in my riding. There was a blood donor clinic there. Some of the kids asked me if I was there to give blood. I said, “No, I am not allowed to give blood.” It is wrong that I am not allowed to give blood, and it is a loss to Canadian society that I am not allowed to give blood.

I will not stop working, even with my own government, until the issue around blood donations is based on behaviour, not on orientation. It is not scientific. It is not right. It is wrong, and it is part of the legacy of discrimination. I am really glad the member asked me that question because I wanted to get that out.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Resuming debate.

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

The question is on the motion.

If a member of a recognized party present in the House wants to request a recorded vote or request that the amendment be passed on division, I invite them to rise and so indicate to the Chair.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would request a recorded vote.

And one or more members having risen:

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

A member having risen, pursuant to order made on Wednesday, September 23, the division stands deferred until Wednesday, October 28, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.

The House resumed from October 21 consideration of the motion that Bill C-7, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Jenica Atwin, Green, Fredericton, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I recently celebrated one year since I became an MP. In my role, I have had the incredible opportunity to learn every day. I listen to people, organizations and advocates, and the discussion around medical assistance in dying is truly about listening. Today I will add my voice to an issue that affects us all.

Talking about death and dying is still taboo in our society, yet each of us must face it, not only for ourselves, but also for the ones we love. This conversation does not come easily, but for those whose time is closer than others, we owe it to them to listen and to act in passing this bill.

The debate on Bill C-7 has been passionate, emotional and raw, and rightly so. I wish to congratulate and offer my gratitude to each member of the House for their efforts on behalf of their constituents, family members and friends. Each of us has been speaking with our community members to learn their thoughts and hear their stories. Human agency has been on display, and the speeches before the House have shown professionalism and integrity, with a deep commitment to the fundamental rights of Canadians.

Sometimes we need a reminder that our constitution is a beautiful thing. It is the crux of why I am so proud to be Canadian, and why I feel so honoured to have the privilege to defend and uphold the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

I remember first learning in depth about the charter as a grade 11 student. I remember the way it made me feel, the way it made me think about our lives and our interactions with one another, and the empowerment that it brought into focus. It was right around this time that I knew I wanted to some day to be involved in politics. While that seems like ages ago, it was only recently I learned about the urgency in amending our laws specifically concerning the issues within the legislation on medical assistance in dying and how it interacts with the charter.

I sat with it, without lived experience, and I thought of many what-if situations. I thought of the various scenarios and scary predicaments I would not want to face out of the risk of overstepping constitutional rights, if mistakes were made. I heard some of these same concerns from many stakeholders, from those who are concerned about how this would impact people living with disabilities or with suicidal ideation. I have listened to those concerns, and filtered this legislation through those important lenses. While I know some of these people may still disagree with me, I want them to know that I am confident this legislation strikes a balance and it will not have the impact they fear.

I also sought out opportunities to speak to individuals who had a personal connection to this legislation, and as it turns out, many people are willing to discuss their wish for dignity in dying, as well as their concerns about the current process and these proposed amendments. These individuals shared with me their efforts to pursue their right to bodily autonomy in their final moments on earth. In the powerful conversations I have had, the specific issues of advance requests and mental competency, as well as the discretionary role of a foreseeable death, were the exact hurdles to the peace of mind that would come from having control over their own death and final control over the pain.

There are Canadians right now who are suffering intolerably and enduringly. They already have do-not-resuscitate orders. They have made final wills and testaments, and have pre-paid for funeral arrangements. They have demonstrated their competence in preparing for death. They should be trusted to make a decision about the nature of their own death as well. If we rob them of this opportunity, then we have failed them. We have allowed our laws to overstep into bodily integrity and autonomy, an infringement of our protected right to security of the person.

I also want to address the language of “assisted suicide” and “euthanasia”. Our words are important, and it is important to remember that this bill is to amend a bill on medical assistance in dying. We know that a medical prognosis is the safeguard. It is the authoritative layer that protects individuals who are vulnerable.

The reality of the situation facing real Canadians is that co-occurring mental and physical illness is extremely common and should not be a barrier to anyone's right to bodily autonomy at the end of their life. Severe depression often accompanies other medical illnesses, and has a high rate of occurrence among persons with disabilities. As a further example, an individual may be bipolar and later develop terminal cancer. This pre-existing condition, likely to flare up in such a stressful time, cannot be the reason to deny the will of an individual to determine their final moments.

In conclusion, I remain firm that mental illness in Canada requires rapid access to effective mental health services, including in-person counselling and access to psychiatrists where necessary, as well as wraparound community supports. We also need to set national standards for long-term care to ensure that the facilities intended to house older adults are providing a quality of life that keeps them healthy and active throughout their later years, and we need to invest in robust palliative care to ensure there is dignity in living, even through those final difficult days.

I think of Hospice Fredericton and the peaceful, beautiful experience people and their families have in that environment. The option to welcome death peacefully should be an option for those who want it. We must also value and listen to Canadians with disabilities and their advocates. We can do all of these things and still pass this bill.

I do not believe that MAID introduces the risk that some patients will be forced to receive this procedure against their wishes. There are preventive measures capable of eliminating this risk. I do believe that my duty to uphold the Charter of Rights and Freedoms means passing legislation like this to uphold security of the person for all Canadians at all moments during their lives.

I will be proudly voting for this legislation. This is about justice. It is about empathy. It is about choosing to respect one's wishes and not interfering in that decision. It is about giving peace of mind to people, so the final chapter in their lives can be written in confidence, and their story can be concluded according to their own volition.

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

Mr. Speaker, this is very important legislation, which, in essence, comes out of a court ruling. The debate in the House really began on this issue after the last federal election, again due to a Supreme Court ruling. Listening to the many speeches on this has been very touching. I suspect it will receive unanimous support, at least I am hopeful it will.

In debate, a lot of members have been talking about related issues, such as the importance of palliative care and the need to do more in that area. To that extent, I would ask my colleague what her thoughts are on how important it is for the federal government to be working with provincial governments in dealing with some of the issues we have before us, including palliative care.

[Jenica Atwin, Green, Fredericton, NB]

Mr. Speaker, it makes me think about where I am in my life and what the future could possibly hold. I know it really comes down to that choice. I hope that at that point in my life, there is effective palliative care to ensure that I have the choice to live with dignity until the end, if that is what is best for me as an individual.

Absolutely, we need to do far more, and we need to collaborate with our provincial counterparts. This is a huge piece of why I also advocate for an increased health transfer for Atlantic provinces. We know we have an aging population. This is an issue we must confront, but the other piece is to ensure dignity in dying as well.

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague across the way gave a great speech. I want to talk a little more about palliative care, as I am obviously a passionate advocate.

My mother passed away this past week, and she was fortunate enough to have excellent palliative care, as we do in Sarnia—Lambton. The government made a good beginning on the palliative care framework and starting down that path, but it has really not put a lot of muscle in it since then, especially during the COVID pandemic with so many people needing palliative care at the end. We need to have that to ensure people can make that choice.

I wonder if the member could share her thoughts on what the government ought to do to boost its efforts in this area.

[Jenica Atwin, Green, Fredericton, NB]

Mr. Speaker, my condolences to the member and her family on their loss.

This continues from what I have been saying, but I think it is important for us as opposition members to continue to hold the government accountable on some of these promises and initiatives. We hear great things in some of the speeches of members opposite, and in the throne speech, but we need to see the action in the legislation that correlates. I will certainly do all I can to push for better palliative care across this country.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Fredericton for her comments.

My question is very simple. What would she like to see added to this bill? Does she think the bill goes far enough? How could we improve it to enhance the quality of end of life care for people who need it?

[Jenica Atwin, Green, Fredericton, NB]

Mr. Speaker, for me, one of the key issues that has been brought forward by constituents is the concept of remedial mental illness and how this might impact people's ability to follow through with their wishes.

As an advocate for mental health supports, it is such an important question and I want to be really careful and clear. As I mentioned, co-occuring disorders often exist, and that should not be a reason for someone to not be able to pursue dignity in death when experiencing another physical illness. It is a very specific issue, and I hope to see that addressed and the legislation changed.

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to speak in the House today on Bill C-7, the medical assistance in dying act. This legislation was previously introduced in Parliament back in January, and I had the privilege of speaking to it in February. The bill died with prorogation, which occurred so that the Liberal government could avoid questions about the WE scandal. This bill would amend the original MAID legislation from 2016.

MAID is a very touchy, personal and non-partisan issue, and everybody has different views on it. I have asked my constituents and most of them are opposed to this legislation. I am opposed to it and, therefore, will not be supporting it.

The question arises as to why we are here today. I believe there are two examples of Liberal inaction that have brought us to this point. The first is that a judge in Quebec struck down the reasonably foreseeable portion of the bill, which is commonly known as the Truchon case. Typically, in a case with such profound and life-altering consequences for Canadians, the federal government would appeal such a decision from a lower court, but in this case it chose not to do that. It is an example of the inaction that has led us to this place. The government should have appealed it to get a ruling from the Supreme Court.

A second example of inaction is the legislative parliamentary review that was scheduled for this past summer. Obviously, COVID threw a monkey wrench into that, but we have more or less figured out how to live with COVID and get things done, so there is really no reason why that parliamentary review could not be ongoing. However, because of the Liberal inaction on that, the review has not happened.

What is the real reason for this inaction? I believe the current justice minister voted against the legislation originally, back in 2016, not because he did not agree with the legislation but because it did not go far enough in his view.

The Liberal government talks about consulting with and listening to Canadians, but the truth is that it has its own agenda and wants to push that. The truth is that it did not want the parliamentary review. It wanted something that was less. The truth is that it had its own agenda and simply wanted to implement it. The Liberals will talk about the consultations they had with different groups and the fact they had over 300,000 responses to their website and polls, but a consultation is a very different thing from a parliamentary review. Consultations are easy to manipulate. They can be ignored. They provide cover for answering the question, “Did you consult with people?”, as the government can say that it did. However, that is very different from a parliamentary review.

That is why we are here. It is the Liberal government's agenda. It is not about listening to Canadians so much.

What do I think about this legislation? Let us start with my constituents. In January, I sent out a mailer and since then my office has received over 400 contacts on this issue through phone calls, emails and letters. Two-thirds of those contacts are opposed to the legislation. I also received a lot of feedback on the rights of health care workers, asking if they have the right to say no to euthanizing someone. As this is an issue of conscience protection, are they free to not participate? Are they free of penalty or harassment?

Also, the conscience objection of institutions is another thing that must be protected, because an institution is far more than bricks and mortar. An institution is made up of the people and the values of those people who are invested in that institution.

Right here in Saskatoon we have St. Paul's Hospital. It is a Catholic hospital managed by the Catholic bishops of Saskatchewan. In our province, hospitals are allowed to choose which services they wish to perform. This hospital operates on the basis of the Catholic faith and has chosen to not perform MAID. The hospital respects a patient's right to choose, however, so if a patient wishes to have MAID, it will help transfer that patient to another hospital.

Instead of MAID, St. Paul's is very well known for its amazing palliative care. In fact, it is the only location in the city. My own mother-in-law was a patient there. In her case, MAID was not requested nor desired and she was fortunate enough to get one of only 12 palliative care beds in the city. She received amazing care as she came to the end of her life. Notice I said 12 beds. Since she has been in there it has added 13 more, so there are 25 palliative care beds for all of northern Saskatchewan, which just is not enough. In fact, 70% of Canadians do not have access to palliative care. I would hope that lack of palliative care would not force people into MAID as their only option.

I would also note that St. Paul's Hospital built its existing and new palliative care facilities all on its own and raised all the money to build the units. Is this not exactly the behaviour that we want to encourage? However, now, because of the lack of conscience protection, the hospital is being sued by activists to provide MAID. A hospital well known for amazing palliative care is forced to defend itself in court because it will not provide euthanasia.

I think that several Supreme Court cases are instructive here. In 2015, in the Loyola case, the court said, “Religious freedom under the Charter must therefore account for the socially embedded nature of religious belief, and the deep linkages between this belief and its manifestation through communal institutions and traditions.” In another 2015 decision, the Supreme Court said, “A neutral public space free from coercion, pressure and judgment on the part of public authorities in matters of spirituality is intended to protect every person’s freedom and dignity, and it helps preserve and promote the multicultural nature of Canadian society.”

We must respect the multicultural nature of Canadian society. We must respect both medical professionals and institutions, and allow them to have full conscience protection free from harassment and consequences.

As I said, MAID is a very touchy, personal and non-partisan issue. One can always find examples of people for whom MAID is a difficult but welcomed option. Unfortunately, those simple examples are the minority. Most often, it is far more complicated than that. The stories I have heard reflect these complications. I have heard of cases where families are caught by surprise and forced to deal with the aftermath, cases where a person is at a particularly low point in their health but under the legislation before us would be able to request and receive MAID with no waiting period, and other cases where physicians or hospital officials apply pressure on individuals to consider MAID.

I am concerned about the removal of the waiting period. Canadians with serious illness could receive a lethal injection on the same day they receive their diagnosis. I am concerned that people, in a time of very high stress, will make a life-ending choice. Many provinces have a cooling-off period for the purchase of something major, whether it is a car, appliance or something like that. A cooling-off period is there to prevent one from making a terrible decision. Does it not make sense to provide a cooling-off period before MAID? I mean, this is the most significant decision that a person could make.

Of course, there are specific cases where a waiting period is not required, but the current legislation already allows doctors to waive this waiting period. During COVID, we shut down our economy on the advice of doctors. Surely we can trust doctors to waive cooling-off periods if it is required.

I am very proud of our Conservative Party. The vote on Bill C-7 will be a free vote and not a whipped vote. Each of us Conservative MPs will be able to vote our conscience and, once again, I am going to be sending out a mailer at the end of this month to ask the people of Saskatoon West for their opinions. I will make sure that the House knows those results at third reading.

I am reminded of something that a constituent told me back in February. He said that we needed to slow this down, not speed it up. I agree with him. Yes, we need to deal with the Quebec court decision, but that only requires one change. Let us wait for a proper, legislated parliamentary review. Let us have a pan-Canadian strategy for palliative care. Let us put full conscience protection in place for physicians and health care professionals. Let us put conscience protection in place for institutions, and let us leave the 10-day waiting period and the ability to create exceptions the way it is right now.

I would like to slow this down.

[Ken McDonald, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

Mr. Speaker, the member mentioned palliative care in his speech and how the majority of his constituents are not in favour of MAID per se. Does the member believe that palliative care in itself is a form of MAID?

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Mr. Speaker, MAID is a very specific thing. Palliative care is a very different thing. Palliative care is natural. Palliative care is something that enhances the end-of-life position for a person.

The real issue with palliative care in Canada is the fact that 70% of Canadians do not have access to it. I believe there is a place for MAID in Canada, for sure, but I also believe that, as much time as we spend on that, we should spend even more on helping Canadians have access to good palliative care so that they have good options and a good way to live out the last days of their lives.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague's speech raised some concerns for me, particularly regarding terminology. When the term “euthanasia” is used, some specialists mean physician-assisted suicide. It is important to distinguish between suicide and medical assistance in dying. It seems to me that certain moral considerations are polluting the debate. As legislators, we have to put our obligation to respect individuals' choices ahead of these moral considerations.

Does my colleague not think we are limiting people's choices when we bring these moral considerations into play?

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Mr. Speaker, that is a very important point and I think it is at the heart of my concern about conscience protection. I believe different medical professionals and different individuals all have different opinions based on their backgrounds, faith and beliefs. We need the ability to provide the services Canadians want and need, but we also need protections for people for whom issues like this go against their conscience so that they have full protection in law not to be forced to do something that would go against their rights. It is very important that we allow for people for whom this is a conscience problem to have protection in law.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member called this a touchy issue and gave examples of people he had spoken to who oppose it. However, 300,000 people responded to the survey about this issue and a large majority, 86% of Canadians, support the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in Carter v. Canada, which recognizes medical assistance in dying as a right. Seven in 10 Canadians, 71%, support in some way the removing of the reasonably foreseeable requirement from the assisted dying legislation. Most Canadians know someone who has been affected by intolerable suffering at the end of their life. This bill would provide dignity to those who would not otherwise have it.

When the member talks about slowing down the legislation, how does he respond to people who do not have the time or who would live out their last days in intolerable pain?

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Mr. Speaker, this legislation does not provide that. The current legislation provides that. This legislation is simply changing and modifying the existing legislation. All of the things the member mentioned are in existence with the current legislation, with the exception of the reasonably foreseeable part. I do not have any disagreement with that. My disagreement is with the 10-day waiting period. I would like to see stronger protections of conscience, and I would like to see more focus put into palliative care.

[Rosemarie Falk, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege for me to speak to Bill C-7, an act to amend the Criminal Code regarding medical assistance in dying. As parliamentarians, it is so important that we are mindful that the decisions that are made in this place have a real-life impact on Canadians, and the life-and-death implications of this particular legislation only make it more important that we approach it with great seriousness and sensitivity.

I approach this subject through the lens of placing tremendous value on every single person's life, and through my own deeply held conviction that every life is valuable and worthy of protection until the point of natural death. As demonstrated throughout this debate, we, as members of Parliament, hold diverse opinions on this subject and many of us approach it with deeply held convictions. The diversity of viewpoints is undoubtedly a reflection of the diverse views among Canadians.

Where I hope we can at a minimum find common ground, is on the importance of protecting vulnerable Canadians. That is why, to me, it is so important to have the opportunity to speak to this legislation: If that is our shared goal, there are significant areas where this legislation misses the mark.

This legislation takes many steps to broaden the eligibility for medical assistance in dying and removes safeguards that were previously put in place. While I recognize that this legislation is in response to the Quebec Superior Court decision in the Truchon case, the legislation introduced by the current Liberal government goes much further than the court decision required. We know that many Canadians were disappointed that the Liberals chose not to appeal the Quebec Superior Court decision to the Supreme Court of Canada. Among those who were vocal in their plea to the justice minister to appeal it were physicians from across Canada and many advocacy groups for Canadians with disabilities.

It is disappointing that the decision was not appealed, but perhaps it is even worse that the Liberals took this opportunity to make significant changes to the legislative framework of MAID prior to the mandated parliamentary review. The medical assistance in dying law that came into effect in 2016 required a parliamentary review of its provisions and of the state of palliative care in Canada. As you know, Mr. Speaker, this review was scheduled to start this summer. The significant changes proposed in Bill C-7 undermine the parliamentary review that has yet to commence. They also undermine our ability as parliamentarians to review changes to MAID with the full knowledge of a comprehensive review.

The Truchon decision struck down the “reasonably foreseeable natural death” criterion, but in considering the proposed legislation we are also considering many legislative changes outside the scope of that decision. We are putting the cart before the horse by forging ahead with fewer safeguards when the personal experiences shared, and the concerns raised by Canadians and relevant stakeholders, should give us all reason to pause in loosening safeguards.

We, as parliamentarians, have a responsibility and a duty to ensure that medically assisted deaths are not driven by lack of access to palliative care or by economic or social vulnerability. Ensuring adequate access to health care services and supports should be our number one priority. Palliative care is a main component of that. Through pain management and psychological, emotional and practical support, palliative care helps to reduce suffering and improves the quality of life for a person with a life-limiting illness. Ongoing gaps in access to, and quality of, palliative care in Canada need to be addressed. With an aging population, the demand for palliative care is increasing. As it is, there are not nearly enough health care providers who specialize in palliative care. If the existing gaps are not addressed, they will only grow.

A 2018 report by the Canadian Institute for Health Information found that while 75% of Canadians would prefer to die at home, only 15% of Canadians had access to palliative care or home-care services. Quality palliative care offers an individual facing a life-limiting illness dignity in living.

In addition to palliative care, we should also be looking at access to, and the quality of, other supports like long-term care, disability support and counselling. If we cannot first ensure dignity in living, there cannot be dignity in dying.

We know that medically assisted deaths are most common among seniors. While that might be expected, given the realities of aging, we must also acknowledge the potential for vulnerabilities. We owe it to Canada's seniors, who have helped build and shape this country, to ensure that they are cared for in their older years. We know that it is families and friends who most often take on the caregiving role. In fact, when options like palliative care are unavailable, caregivers step up to support them.

We need safeguards in place to ensure that seniors are not choosing medically assisted death because they feel like they are a burden on the health care system or a burden to their friends or their families. Ultimately, the best safeguard we can put in place to protect vulnerable seniors is to ensure that they have adequate and appropriate supports for a good quality of life. Without these, there is no real choice.

To help ensure that seniors, and any individuals for that matter, are not led to choose MAID out of concern that they are a burden, it is important that they do not feel pressured to do so. First-hand accounts from Canadians who have had medically assisted death suggested, without them seeking it, are extremely troubling. Offering MAID to someone who has not sought it sends a message. When a person is at a low point or in a fragile state of mind, prompting them to pursue MAID may suggest to them that their life is less valuable or has lost value. It might also suggest that they are a burden to society or to their family.

As legislators, we should be looking to ensure that no person is counselled or pressured into MAID. Unfortunately, the legislation before us takes a step further away from ensuring that, perhaps unintentionally. It does this by no longer requiring that there be two independent unpaid witnesses. If passed, it would require one single witness. This independent witness could also be a paid personal or health care worker. This leaves the door open for individuals to be presented with the option of MAID unprompted, in the presence of no other witnesses.

The same individual who counsels a vulnerable person to consider MAID could also serve as one of their independent witnesses. In a vulnerable state, a person could easily be made to feel that they are a burden, and that prompting could lead them to feel pressured to end their life. With the absence of a second witness, this decision could be made without the knowledge of the individual's family.

The proposed legislation also significantly broadens eligibility by allowing for advance consent. Advance consent would allow a medical practitioner to proceed with MAID without a person's consent immediately before administering it. While consent is deemed invalidated if a person demonstrates, by words or gestures, refusal or resistance to a procedure, this assessment is solely up to the practitioner administering it. This leaves space for errors. By solely placing that responsibility on practitioners, it does them a disservice, just as the absence of conscience rights for health care workers in the existing or proposed legislation does them a disservice as well.

There is a finality to death. We cannot afford to leave room for error. As legislators, we have the responsibility to think about how every individual will be impacted by this legislation, because every life is valuable. We have to be mindful of not reinforcing negative stereotypes about illness, age or ability. We cannot undermine suicide prevention efforts or devalue human life. We have to ensure that meaningful alternatives to MAID not only exist, but that they are readily available. Above all, we have to first ensure the protection of vulnerable Canadians. We cannot allow individual autonomy to outweigh their protection.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her contribution this afternoon.

Earlier in her speech, she talked about our role as members of Parliament. I wonder if she could comment on the role of the court systems that are also looking at legislation we put forward, and then ruling on it when it comes back to us for review, and looking at how we could make our legislation align with the court systems that we have in Canada.

[Rosemarie Falk, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Mr. Speaker, this goes back to a speech I gave in this place earlier today, about not rushing things and making sure we take the time to listen to Canadians, stakeholders and experts.

Another good point that I mentioned in my speech is that there was supposed to be a review. The review has not happened. The Liberal government is bypassing that altogether.

Absolutely, COVID-19 has happened and things have changed a bit, but the review could have at least been started so that this legislation could then be tabled.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. I wonder if we are wasting our time today.

Yesterday, we were talking about conversion therapy, a file Quebec has been a leader on, but still has to wait for Ottawa. We are always trailing behind Ottawa because we are always waiting for Ottawa to get moving and get on board. Today we are talking about medical assistance in dying because a decision was made in Quebec, which is ahead of the curve there too. We have come back to Ottawa to work on this file again. If Quebec were independent we would not be wasting our time duplicating our work on these types of files.

I want to come back to my colleague's speech. Legislators did not do their job when it comes to former Bill C-14 on medical assistance in dying. That is why we are here today. We have to come back to this file because the Bloc Québécois's proposed amendments in 2016 to avoid bringing the courts into social and political issues were rejected. We are coming back to it today because a decision was made by the Quebec Superior Court.

I would like to hear what my colleague has to say about people who have a serious irreversible illness and are essentially forced to go to court. These people are already sick and have to fight the system to be able to access medical assistance in dying. Sometimes they even have to go on a hunger strike to be heard.

My colleague talked about dignity earlier. Does she see any dignity or humanity in putting people in this position?

[Rosemarie Falk, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Mr. Speaker, this goes back, again, to the fact that these matters cannot be partisan. These are matters of conscience. We need to be hearing from our constituents and making sure that our conscience is also reflected.

We cannot be bringing forward amendments and having them just be shut down because we are not from the governing party. We need to work together.

I believe every life has immense value. If we put funds and resources into palliative care, we could be in a different situation.

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I, too, have had several reflective conversations with constituents around the proposed legislation. I believe that we need to have thoughtful safeguards in place. I believe that the proposed legislation includes those.

My question is for the hon. member. I understand that a strong majority of Canadians support the direction this legislation takes us in. Notwithstanding the concerns the member has heard, I wonder how she understands that support among a majority of Canadians.

[Rosemarie Falk, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I believe that in order to have dignity in living, we need to be able to have the choice. If medical assistance in dying is going to be an option that is readily available, and doctors or counsellors are prompting patients or clients to receive that, we should have adequate funding in our hospices and for palliative care, so that people can have choices at the ends of their lives.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

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 Vancouver East, Housing; the hon. member for Battlefords—Lloydminster, Telecommunications; the hon. member for Courtenay—Alberni, Indigenous Affairs.

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join the debate today on Bill C-7, an act to amend the Criminal Code. Specifically Bill C-7 would amend section 241 of the Criminal Code, the provision that makes it illegal for a person to help someone else commit suicide. This section of the code was amended by the last Parliament in response to a Supreme Court of Canada decision in 2015, the Carter decision.

Bill C-14, a 2016 bill, stated that one of its objectives was, “permitting access to medical assistance in dying for competent adults whose deaths are reasonably foreseeable strikes the most appropriate balance.” I would agree with that. The relevant operative provision in the act then sets out the criteria for determining whether a person qualifies for MAID, including that with respect to that person “their natural death has become reasonably foreseeable, taking into account all of their medical circumstances.” However, all of this is about to change if the government has its way with the current draft legislation, Bill C-7.

I am speaking to that bill because I have been encouraged by many of my constituents. Admittedly I have received some letters in support of the government's initiative to expand the reach of MAID, but the vast majority have encouraged me to speak in favour of leaving the law as it is or further restricting access to MAID.

The correspondence I have received in favour of keeping up the safeguards fall into two categories. First, the reasonably foreseeable death safeguard should stay in place. Second, more should be done to expand palliative care services. It was pointed out to me by many that many seniors and other people with serious diseases did not have good ready access to adequate palliative care.

I will quote Rebecca, one of the letter writers, “Let Canada be a society that is known for its modern and advanced palliative care services and not as a country that has ever-expanding use of MAID.” As a proud Canadian, I agree with that statement.

What is behind the current Bill C-7 is the 2019 Quebec Superior Court decision in Truchon. The plaintiffs in that case challenged the constitutionality of the then three-year-old law, arguing that their charter rights had been violated. The federal government, acting through the Attorney General's office at that time, did the right thing. It defended the law, which is what we would expect an Attorney General to do for Canada's laws.

The AG argued as follows, setting out the three main objectives of Bill C-14, which are still relevant today or at least they should be.

First, it is important to affirm the inherent and equal value of every person's life and to avoid encouraging negative perceptions of the quality of life of persons who are elderly, ill or disabled. Second, suicide is a significant health issue. Third, vulnerable people must be protected from being induced in moments of weakness to end their lives. I think we would all agree with that.

However, the Quebec court did not. It refused to accept the first two principles as representing the objectives of the law. It said, “the Court cannot accept the two first objectives advanced by the Attorney General regarding the affirmation of the inherent and equal value of every person’s life and the importance of preventing suicide.”

Having thrown aside those principles, it was easy for the court then to decide that the law needed to be changed. Remarkably, the current Attorney General did not appeal that decision. Instead the Liberals are now hastening to amend the legislation to eliminate the reasonable foreseeability of death safeguard.

With the reasonable foreseeability of death safeguard down, this is what we now have left. First, the applicant for MAID has a serious and incurable disease, illness or disability. Second, they are in an advanced state of decline. Third, their psychological or physical suffering is intolerable to them, which is completely a subjective test.

For example, people with Parkinson's, or MS or quadriplegic patients would check off all those boxes. If they had psychological suffering on top of that, they would be eligible for MAID.

Under this new regime, if it becomes law, people who are not dying but who meet all the other criteria will satisfy the requirements for state-sanctioned assisted dying.

I want to reiterate what Rebecca from my riding said. She said, “Let Canada be a society that is known for its modern and palliative care services and not as a country that has ever expanding use of MAID.”

I know the law will be amended. It must be to satisfy the Truchon decision. However, I will point out four things that I hope the committee will take into consideration in improving Bill C-7.

My first point is that the 10-day reflection period for the track one patients, those whose death is reasonably foreseeable, should come back. It should be there. That was not a requirement of Truchon and I do not believe that Bill C-7 is improved by taking that10-day reflection period out. For track two applicants for MAID, people who death is not reasonably foreseeable, there is a 90-day reflection period, and I agree with that.

The second point I want to make is about the 90-day reflection period. I agree with it, but the wording is inadequate. I would recommend to the committee that it amend the 90-day reflection period clause to be the same as the 10-day reflection period clause, but with the necessary change in wording.

My third point is that Bill C-7 would reduce the number of witnesses required for a patient's written directive for MAID. There is absolutely no requirement for that at all and it is certainly not an improvement. Many of the legal documents, including last wills and testaments, require two witnesses as a safeguard against coercion and that should be maintained.

The fourth improvement is that the provision in Bill C-7 saying that a patient's request for MAID must be voluntary without coercion should be expanded to prohibit the attending physician or other health care professional from being the first to raise the availability of MAID option. MAID should never be presented as just another option because in some circumstances, that in itself, would be coercive.

When Bill C-7 was first introduced into the House back in January, COVID-19 had not hit us yet. Since then, many seniors have died of this virus and many others are in isolation. I have seen first-hand the devastating effect isolation has on the mental and physical well-being of seniors, my father-in-law included, as it would for any person. We are created to be social creatures after all.

As my constituent Sarah told me in a very thoughtfully drafted, “[Bill C-7] will put many elderly Canadians, isolated and lonely in their long term care homes, at greater risk of being considered eligible for MAiD. That is not how we should be caring for our seniors!”

Let us use our experience with COVID-19 as a lens to have a very careful review of this draft legislation to reconfirm our commitment to value life and to build as many safeguards as we can around our most vulnerable citizens.

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

Mr. Speaker, since November or December of 2015, there has been a great deal of debate on the important issue of medical assistance in dying. At the beginning of 2020, a massive input was solicited. We received input from Canadians in all regions of the country, over 300,000 Canadians. There has been ongoing consultations, discussions and debates over the last number of years.

The bill before us is because of a court ruling. After the legislation has passed, it does not prevent us from continuing discussions on this. I wonder if the member would recognize that this is something we are not only being compelled to do, but in fact it is the right thing to be doing at this time.

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I realize and confirm that we are being compelled to do this. Sadly, that is true. The Attorney General, in my opinion, should have appealed the Truchon decision. It should have gone to the Supreme Court of Canada. It would have been given a very fair hearing there and it also would have given Parliament the opportunity to review the legislation as we were scheduled to do.

As for consultations, I do not think any consultations would forestall us from putting in the safeguards that I am suggesting, the 10-day reflection period, keeping the two witnesses in place and clarifying some of the language around the—

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Jonquière.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in my opinion, in his presentation my colleague regrettably confused two concepts, and in doing so, has made it difficult for parliamentarians to have a clear picture of medical assistance in dying.

First, he confuses medical assistance in dying with suicide. In my opinion, suicide is a permanent solution to a temporary problem, which is a phrase we often hear. A person who commits suicide is someone who may have a future but who, unfortunately, commits a fatal act in a moment of despondency. That is not the case for those who resort to medical assistance in dying.

Even more significant is the troublesome confusion of medical assistance in dying with palliative care. Palliative care already exists in our health care system. If it were better funded, we might perhaps have access to better palliative care. However, I believe that medical assistance in dying has nothing to do with palliative care.

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will start with the second question first. I agree that more money and resources should go to palliative care. People should be given a real choice. If the choice is between intolerable suffering or seeking medical assistance in dying, that is not a real choice.

As for conflating medical assistance in dying with suicide, the point that I was making was that Bill C-14 amended section 241 of the Criminal Code, which is the provision dealing with suicide.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, very few subjects in federal politics are more sensitive than the one before us today as parliamentarians. Of course, this all comes from the Carter decision by the Supreme Court of Canada that Canadians had a constitutional right to access physician-assisted death. Therefore, our job is to craft the best possible system to facilitate that right while we ensure there are the proper protections.

My question is about one of the challenges created by the current medical assistance in dying legislation, which is the requirement for final consent at the time assistance is rendered. This sometimes forces those already assessed and approved for medical assistance in dying to make a cruel choice when faced with the possible loss of competence that would then make them unable to give consent, with the result that they are forced to go earlier or risk not being able to receive the assistance they need to avoid continuing to live with intolerable pain.

I wonder if my hon. colleague has some comments on how the government ought to best deal with that situation.

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the hon. member that this is probably one of the most difficult and sensitive questions in this whole legislative framework.

Whose decision is it when it is the right time to inject a lethal substance? If it is not the person receiving it making that final call, whose call is it to decide when the right time is to do it? It is equally difficult the other way.

[Marc Dalton, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will read a post by a well-known physician in Ridge Meadows Hospital in Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge. It states, “I personally have had a patient undergo MAID who would have had a very good chance of living for 5 or more years. The quality of care and the decision to administer MAID was very questionable in my view and when I contacted the coroner to request a review was told that these cases are not reviewable by the coroner's service. Where is the oversight?”

Would the member comment on oversight? A lot of these have been taken off.

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

Mr. Speaker, that is a very good and important question, but there is no easy answer to it. Of course, there is patient confidentiality, so that information would not be readily available to the public because it was a decision that a patient made in consultation with their doctor.

I would say to keep the 90-day reflection period in and clean up the language to make it much clearer so that doctors and other health care providers understand what the guidelines are. Right now it is too confusing.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Montarville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have to say that I am very happy to be participating in this debate, not because it is an exciting or joyful topic, but because it is nevertheless a crucially important social debate.

The constitutional distribution of power means that we can talk about one issue in both legislatures. I had the immense privilege of sitting here for 12 years, then sitting in the National Assembly for 13 years, and then coming back here on October 21 of last year. I have had the opportunity to discuss issues relating to same sex marriage, the subject of a civil union bill in Quebec. When I was an MP, I had an opportunity to talk about gun control. As minister of and official opposition critic for public safety, I debated a gun registry bill in Quebec. When I was an MNA, we talked about end-of-life care and medical assistance in dying. Now I am back in Ottawa, where we are discussing medical assistance in dying once again.

We have heard plenty of relevant arguments on both sides, extremely well-thought-out legal arguments as well as moral arguments.

I do not normally do this in the House, but my speech will be far more personal than usual, because this moral issue is close to my heart.

First, I would like to point out that I am a man of faith. I am Catholic; I was baptized and raised Catholic, but my convictions go much further than that. I do believe that a higher power created the universe, because there is no other way to explain creation other than by that sort of demiurgic form that created the universe. Some have a name for this higher power; others have several names. I think we are all talking about essentially the same thing.

Some people invoke their beliefs, their faith, to say that it is wrong to end a life. I have something to say about that, since it is part of my Catholic upbringing: we should live our lives to the very end, no matter how much we suffer. However, I refuse to believe that the Creator wants his creatures to suffer. I simply cannot bring myself to believe that, first of all.

Secondly, I like to think that if there really is a Creator and he expects certain things of us, then is it not up to each and every one of us to stand before our Creator when we leave this earth and not interfere in other people's lives and the choices they have to make?

It is not for us to determine the choices individuals make. Life is fair in that the same outcome awaits us all, but it is unfair in that the outcome does not await us all in the same way. In some cases, the outcome is gentler, in other cases it is marked by incredible suffering. In some cases, the outcome arrives more quickly and in other cases, much later. The outcome might be the same for everyone, but it is not equitable for everyone and each and every one of us will have to endure suffering to varying degrees.

I can understand some people saying enough is enough, they have had it. Since the outcome is inevitable, if the person no longer wants to suffer, why would we allow them to continue to suffer and even force them to continue to suffer?

I believe that if our faith means something, it must let us be compassionate. To be compassionate is not to watch someone suffer and relish their suffering because we want them to live it to the end, but, on the contrary, to support them in whatever choice they make. If they choose to leave this earth earlier to put an end to their suffering, which will lead them to this inevitable outcome anyway, I think that our duty as believers, human beings and political decision-makers is to support this person's choice and decision.

That is why, as a believer, as someone born and educated as a Catholic, I call on this faith and education not to oppose end-of-life care and medical assistance in dying, but to encourage it, to ensure that it is made possible. In fact, I believe that our role is not to judge what someone else wants to make of their end of life, but to support them in the decision they make for themselves for their end of life.

I said somewhat the same thing as what I just said before the Quebec National Assembly when I was a member there. When I expressed this opinion at the time, it generated a lot of interest from the bishop of the diocese in Saint-Jean-Longueuil, where I live. Bishop Gendron invited me to dinner at his home, where we ate spaghetti and talked a little bit about all of this. He wanted to understand where I was coming from as a Catholic to say that I was in favour of medical assistance in dying. I told him that I was in favour of abortion for the same reasons. My Catholic beliefs are what led me to be in favour of abortion because, if it is true that the Creator is opposed to abortion, then it will be up to the individual to stand before our Creator and give account when she leaves this world. It is not up to us to judge that woman or to impute motives that will make the already difficult decision of having an abortion even harder for her.

Similarly, I was proud to vote in favour of same sex marriage in the House. I told my bishop that I could not believe a religion that emphasizes love so much would refuse to accept that people love each other.

Because of my Catholic convictions and my faith in our shared humanity, I believe that we must not judge others' choices, whether we are talking about love lives, terminating an unwanted pregnancy or unbearable suffering. It is not up to us to judge these choices. Our role, as human beings, as decision-makers, is to support these people's choices.

I touched on this at the beginning of my speech and I want to close in the same vein: The people of Verchères, and now Montarville, have entrusted me to represent them, and I have had the immense privilege, during my wonderful career, to be able to speak to certain social issues that are at the very core of what I just mentioned, specifically that we all have an obligation to support others and refrain from judging them.

[Ron Liepert, Conservative, Calgary Signal Hill, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I enjoyed listening to the presentation by my colleague from the Bloc Québécois. It is not very often that I find myself agreeing with just about everything he said.

I ask the member for his thoughts on what I am hearing from the majority of my constituents. They support medical assistance in dying but are asking that we look at going somewhat further, with things like advance consent for when people are no longer of sound mind and cannot make a medical decision. I would like the member's impression on whether or not that is something we should be allowing sooner rather than later. Also, how can we get the government to undertake this study immediately?

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Montarville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question, because it allows me to address another issue, one that is just as important as what I talked about in my speech.

If one detects early signs of a degenerative disease, such as Alzheimer's or Parkinson's disease, for example, should that person not be given the opportunity to indicate in advance, like a kind of living will, what their intentions are regarding how to move forward when they might no longer be able to make an informed choice?

I must say, I am pleased that the government decided to introduce this legislation, because, let's admit it, the previous one was too restrictive and some people think that even this one is too restrictive. Perhaps we should start thinking about expanding it even further, as the Government of Quebec is doing with its legislation.

[Lenore Zann, Liberal, Cumberland—Colchester, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank our hon. colleague for his passionate speech. I found it informative and extremely emotional. As somebody who was brought up as a Catholic as a young girl, I too feel people should have their own choice as to how they end their life if they are in great pain and suffering.

What would my hon. colleague say to our colleagues on the floor who are having trouble with this bill because their constituents have said it could be used the wrong way to perhaps put people to death who are having some kind of problem? What would he say to those people so they see his perspective?

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Montarville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, again, I think that is an extremely legitimate concern.

We cannot allow people to be euthanized based on a consent that might not reflect their true intentions. That is why it is so important to bring in parameters and safeguards that allow us to be sure of the person's consent.

Once informed consent is clearly expressed, whether in advance, as I mentioned a few moments ago, or in the present-time situation, I believe we must respect it. I believe this is a legitimate concern and we need these parameters to help us be certain of the informed consent of the person choosing to end their life.

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for his articulate and passionate speech. I only wish that my French was better so I could hear its full impact. His words about the duty not to judge but to support and honour people's choices had a particular impact.

I had the honour recently to sit with some constituents, and I heard their deeply held concerns about medical assistance in dying. While my party and I support the bill, I wonder sometimes when speaking with these individuals whether at the heart of this is an unreconcilable conflict between beliefs and perspectives when it comes to the end of life.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Montarville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I sincerely believe that, in most cases, apart from the legal arguments, people's reservations about this issue and their resistance to the idea stem from moral arguments. That is why it was so important to me to express my point of view, however humbly among my fellow MPs, which is that I support MAID for moral and even religious reasons, just as I support abortion and same-sex marriage.

I understand why people who oppose MAID for moral reasons have those reservations. They truly believe it is a sin, but that sin, if it really is a sin, is on the part of the individual, who must bear responsibility for it when brought before their Creator. It is not society's or the community's sin; we are not responsible for the choices of others. Each person must take responsibility for their own choices.

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

Mr. Speaker, today I am pleased to present my maiden speech to advocate on behalf of those who cannot advocate for themselves. It is truly a privilege to be a voice for them. Some of them will even be voices from beyond the grave.

I call on my colleagues today to truly stop a moment and hear the cri de coeur from those who are still among us and from those calling to use from the next life. They should take a moment to listen to what we here in the House have done to destroy the value of their lives, to exclude them from society and to encourage them to exit the stage rather than wait for the curtain to fall once the final act is finished.

I will begin by introducing members to Roger Foley. As a young man, Roger was a musician and creator. He loved life, and it showed. However, in his early thirties, Roger was diagnosed with cerebellar ataxia, a debilitating disease that has stolen away his physical abilities one function at a time. Roger is now completely reliant on care providers for every necessity of life.

In the summer of 2018, after almost dying from a life-threatening case of food poisoning he contracted in long-term care, Roger was trying desperately to access funding for patient-directed care to hire and train his own consistent caregiver in his own home, as opposed to living in a hospital or in long-term care with rotating staff who do not understand his specific care needs. Members may remember Roger as the man who recorded his caregivers offering him euthanasia as an easy way out of his suffering. As we heard in the recording, the nurse says, “You don’t have to do it in some dramatic manner. You can apply for assisted—you know.” The nurse could not even bring himself to utter the word “euthanasia”, yet there he was, against Canadian law and all moral and ethical standards, offering a desperate man an easy way out. It was problem solved. However, Roger is a fighter, and even though he was overwhelmingly desperate, Roger decided he wanted to fight this injustice on behalf of himself and all our vulnerable brothers and sisters.

Roger's path intersected with mine early this year at the beginning of my time on the health committee. In preparation for a study on palliative care in Canada and a review of the euthanasia regime, issues that I thought would soon be on the table for discussion, I reached out to him and his lawyer for his perspective as someone within the system. I finally had a chance to speak via telephone with Roger while he was in Victoria Hospital in a private ward getting good care. While not in his preferred setting of his own home, I found him to be very open and engaging. His knowledge of the issue of euthanasia and the danger it posed for the vulnerable was enlightening. Just before we hung up that night, I said to Roger, “I wish you were on the committee because you are so much more equipped to speak to this issue than I am,” and we agreed to speak again soon.

Then COVID-19 hit, and Roger Foley's world changed completely. Roger was repeatedly transferred between units where there was little room for lift equipment and insufficient staffing for his specialized care. Living at the mercy of care attendants who are pressed for time was agonizingly difficult. Roger has very little in his life that is in his own control, but one thing he can do is swallow when offered food, with a certain technique. His head needs to be tipped at just the right angle, and the spoon needs to be offered in just the right way. For Roger, the ability to swallow affords him a feeling of independence. It may seem like a little thing to us, but to Roger it means a whole lot.

When the hospital wanted to feed him with a feeding tube to minimize the care hours required, his mental health took a turn for the worse. On May 15, Roger's brother filed a complaint with the ombudsman on Roger's behalf, yet things just got worse. Roger was suddenly informed that he would be transferred to the long-term care facility that had led to his original food poisoning and hospitalization. Understandably, Roger refused the transfer, begging instead, if not allowed self-directed care, to go back to his original unit, where staff knew him and his needs well. The hospital ignored his request, insisting that it was not safe for him because of COVID and that he needed to transfer.

The night before the transfer was to take place, Roger became completely desperate. He had not been sleeping, due to his fear and anxiety of being transferred. He became so distressed that he told his caregivers that he would throw himself off the gurney if they tried to transfer him the following morning. With no hope of help in sight, Roger reached out to his brother. His brother reached out to his lawyer. His lawyer reached out to me.

That evening we spent three hours on a conference call with Roger, encouraging him to be positive, to keep up the faith and to stay the course on behalf of those in the disabled community who would not have his strength and courage. All the while, I was attempting to contact the hospital administrators on another phone to beg them to back down and to warn them that Roger was possibly suicidal and needed them to reconsider for his mental health's sake.

Suddenly, I could hear on the phone in the room with Roger a new voice. The voice introduced herself as the hospital's mental health personnel, there to administer the 10-question suicide checklist on Roger. She began with her first question, attempting to gauge his distress level. Roger told her that he had no intention of answering her questions, since it was her and her bosses' fault he was in so much distress. She tried over and over, and he refused until she finally left the room in a huff.

The House heard me right; the mental health professional was so annoyed that Roger refused to answer her suicide checklist, she left the room and never returned. I was absolutely dumbfounded on the other side of the line, sitting helpless in my office in Langley. All these able-bodied health care professionals were able to leave the room freely. Everyone could could leave as they pleased, except Roger. Roger was trapped.

When we finally got some assurances that a trusted doctor would come and talk to Roger, and it encouraged him to try to rest, I hung up the phone, I had no idea what was going to happen in the morning. I was helpless, but not nearly as helpless as Roger. I can tell members that it was with great relief in the morning that Roger had indeed received an intervention through a trusted doctor and was getting proper care and nutrition. However, this event was a life changer for me. It dawned on me that without the help of his lawyer, who stayed on the phone with us the entire time, Roger's story may have ended quite differently. I wondered how many others in the country are at risk under this new MAID regime. How many vulnerable disabled are offered euthanasia when they are at their weakest? I made it my mission to find out.

What did I find out? I found out that Roger's case is by no means an isolated case. We can see this sort of abuse happening across the country. Take, for example, Jonathan Marchand: 43 years old, suffering from muscular dystrophy and living confined to bed in a nursing home in Quebec. He produced a video from his hospital room which he released on YouTube in response to living in long-term care during the pandemic. Jonathan states “Increasingly, euthanasia is offered as a solution to institutionalization. The idea is if you don't want to go into a long-term facility and die a slow death, then we are going to help you kill yourself. And those ideas are based on false assumptions about people with disabilities - like our lives are not worth living, that it's better to be dead than to have a disability - but it's not true!” He says that he decided that he would not go ahead with euthanasia, but would fight to get out of that place. Jonathan said, “In a world where there will be no empathy for people who need more help, it would be terrible. It would be something out of the nightmare of the Third Reich.”

Bill C-7 is an absolute nightmare that is facing disabled Canadians. Many are already afraid to go to hospital for fear they will be treated differently from the able-bodied. With the implementation of MAID in 2015, the community braced itself for the slippery slope ahead. Everyone said they were just overreacting. They said that safeguards were in place and euthanasia was meant to be safe and rare. We jump to 2020, and here we are racing down the hill at breakneck speed. In consultation with the disabled community, they have expressed firm opposition to this bill.

They explain that with the wording of Bill C-7, the Liberal government is proposing to set up two lines. Line one is for the able-bodied, who, in times of extreme distress, will be offered suicide prevention. Line two is for the disabled, who, in moments of weakness that they all endure as life ebbs and flows, will be offered assisted suicide, because their lives are not worth living, they are told. Add to all that the fact that current safeguards have already been proven completely ineffective. There is a complete lack of accountability structures to ensure abuses do not occur, and yet we are being asked to loosen restrictions even more. Where is the palliative care that was promised? Where is the review that was supposed to have happened? What are the Liberals afraid of finding out? Is it that in actual fact MAID has led to coercive deaths across our country, which go on undetected daily?

I stand here on behalf of all those who cry out for compassion and dignity as they travel a very tough road filled with complex care needs and physical ailments that require far more from us as a society. I stand here as the voice of Roger in Toronto, Jonathan in Quebec, Raymond Bourbonnais, Candice Lewis, Sean Tagert, Archie Rolland and so many more who we may never know.

“Lean on me.” That is what I want all of us to say here in this House—

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

We are unfortunately out of time.

Questions and comments, the hon. parliamentary secretary.

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

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the member sharing her thoughts and in particular highlighting some individuals. Part of this debate, from its origins five or six years ago, was the citations from real people about what is happening in their lives. We have looked at those as well as the court decisions that have taken place, and listened to the literally thousands of Canadians throughout the country who have had the opportunity to participate and provide information. We are talking about hundreds of thousands of Canadians who have provided input.

I believe the legislation before us is fairly good, in that it puts us in a place where the bill can be sent to committee and the member can hopefully get some of her concerns addressed. I am wondering if the member supports the bill being sent to committee, at the very least, to hear some others' thoughts and maybe get some of her questions answered.

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

Madam Speaker, a recent statement was penned and signed by over 800 physicians in Canada in response to Bill C-7. Only 25 people are required to sign a petition for it to be recognized, so when a document is presented with 800 signatures from experts in a relevant field, the House should pay close attention to what that document says. Let me read—

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

My apologies to the hon. member, but the time is up.

It being 5:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.

[Bob Saroya, Conservative, Markham—Unionville, ON]

moved that Bill C-238, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (possession of unlawfully imported firearms), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Madam Speaker, today, it is my pleasure to rise to introduce Bill C-238, an act to amend the Criminal Code, regarding the possession of unlawfully imported firearms. This bill would help make my community of Markham and communities across the country safer places to live. The bill would do that by increasing the mandatory minimum prison time for criminals in known possession of a smuggled gun. It would also make criminals charged with this crime less likely to be released on bail.

To understand the bill, members need to know how community safety in the GTA has changed over the years. That history is something I know very well.

Like many immigrants, I came to Canada and settled in Toronto as a young man. Back in the seventies, I lived in a rooming house in downtown Toronto with five other tenants and the landlady. My rent was $10 per week and no key was ever issued for the front door, since the door was always left open. There was no crime around my area, and no one was afraid to walk alone at any time of the night. However, over time, Toronto developed some problem areas.

Many years later, I owned several businesses, and some of them were in the most difficult part of town. I was always afraid for the safety of my staff and my customers. Police regularly came to download the security video from my business, since there were many crimes committed in the area.

This is one of the reasons I got involved with politics. I know what it is like to lose sleep over crime concerns. I want all Canadians to feel safe in their community. That is why I am always talking about safety and security.

As time went on, even the bad parts of Toronto felt safer. People worried less about their kids walking home at night and whether they remembered to lock their doors. I would proudly tell people that Toronto was one of the safest major cities in the world.

Over the past five years, that has changed. Gun crime has risen to new highs year after year. What once felt like a safe city no longer feels that way. Shootings are happening almost daily. Even with multiple lockdowns in Ontario this year, there were reports of nearly daily shootings, each more horrible than the last. It is easy to see this trend by following the news. In 2018, the headlines, day after day, were about horrific shootings. It was a record year for shooting deaths. In 2019, there were even more shootings. Things are not getting better.

Speaking to my constituents only confirmed what I believed about gun crime. When I go door to door, people tell me that they are afraid. I hear stories of gunshots close to parks where children play. The stories I heard last October, before COVID struck, are the same as what I am hearing now.

I will read some more recent headlines from our local paper. On June 21, it says, “York police investigate incident of gunshots fired at Markham residence”. On June 28, it says, “Man found dead behind wheel after shooting, crash in Markham”. On September 11, it says, “Police investigate several incidents of gunshots fired in Markham as 'possibly connected'”. On October 23, it says, “Second man arrested after shooting in Markham”.

The statistics published in the 2019 York Regional Police “Statistical Report” point to a growing problem in York Region. There are similar headlines from the rest of the GTA and across Canada. When I talk with MPs of all stripes, they are on the same page. I think it is very clear that the problem of gun crime is not getting better, and that needs to change.

Last year, I met with community leaders and law enforcement. I asked them what concrete steps the federal government needed to take to make the community safer. The thing I heard over and over at these meetings was that organized crime was behind the shootings, and the streets are flooded with guns smuggled from across the border. Mostly they are handguns because they are easy to smuggle, hide and carry. That should not be shocking news to anyone. Our farmers, hunters and sports shooters are not fuelling a crime wave. The shootings are gang-related, with innocent people getting caught in the crossfire.

The former head of the Toronto Police, my friend Chief Saunders, said last year, “Gun violence is getting worse, there is more access to firearms”. He also said that his sources show 82% of the guns picked up by police in Toronto are smuggled into the country.

Ontario’s Solicitor General, Sylvia Jones, has said that provincial numbers show that 84% of the guns used in crime are being smuggled into the country. She has said, “We need to actually crack down on that because that ultimately will keep our community safer.”

It makes sense. Canada shares the longest undefended border in the world with the United States, and in the United States it is very easy to purchase a gun. Smuggling guns is good business.

Let me quote directly from a CBC article. Superintendent Jason Crowley, with the Windsor police department, says that the appeal of smuggling guns is pure economics. He says, “You will see a gun, a firearm purchased in the States for potentially $200 to $300, and they'll go on the streets [in Canada] for $3,000.”

That is a return on investment that is hard to beat, but it gets worse. The industry is so profitable that criminals are even renting these guns. Why sell it for $3,000, when they can rent out the same gun for $2,000, multiple times?

I know that some members on the other side of the House may bring slightly different figures to this debate. However, I want to focus on the fact that smuggled guns are being used regularly in the GTA and across Canada. Many of the bullet wounds that send people to the hospital and the morgue come from smuggled guns.

The problem is deeper than just the guns. When the police catch the criminals using these guns, they end up right back on the street, sometimes within hours. While I know that some people may be concerned about criminals' rights, I want to be clear that criminals do not have the right to terrorize their community. When dangerous people are arrested for shootings and they return to the community within a day, there is a strong message to the community. That message is that people cannot depend on the justice system to keep them safe.

This is not an exaggeration. When I spoke to the police about this, they said it was a problem. Just having someone in jail for a couple of days can help them cool down and put a pause on the cycle of violence. They are not alone in this.

The Premier of Ontario has said, “somebody gets arrested on a Friday night and they get bail and are back out on Wednesday for retribution. That’s absolutely unacceptable”. Ontario municipal leaders, including the mayor of Toronto, are calling for tougher bail for those accused of gun-related offences and longer sentences for those convicted. There are too many stories of dangerous criminals receiving bail only to commit more crimes within hours.

My private member's bill would help tackle both smuggled guns and dangerous criminals on bail. As members may know, possession of an unauthorized firearm that was obtained in crime is covered by section 96 of the Criminal Code. The punishment is one to 10 years, or a summary conviction. That does not go far enough. My bill will distinguish known possession of a smuggled firearm as a more serious offence.

This offence would come with three to 14 years in prison on the first conviction and five to 14 on the second and subsequent convictions. This charge is comparable to the prison time for illegal firearm importing and exporting.

Possession of a smuggled firearm is a serious crime. That is why people charged with this new offence would face reverse onus bail, which requires criminals to tell a judge why they should be let back into the community on bail. This type of bail is already in the Criminal Code for multiple crimes such as hostage-taking, armed robbery or extortion with a firearm. This bill would make sure the punishment fits the crime of carrying around a smuggled gun.

I know there are some concerns with respect to my bill. Normally, with legislation on firearms, people are concerned about the unintended effects: that, instead of the law cracking down on criminals, it would be used to punish hunters who file paperwork a little too late. We have seen this before in the long-gun registry, which cost about a billion dollars but did not seem to make anyone safer. This bill would avoid that. It is only focused on weapons that are smuggled and on known possession.

I know other members will be concerned about mandatory minimums. They believe that taking the decision out of the hands of a judge is wrong and is a question of human rights. Some might consider three years in prison to be cruel and unusual punishment, especially for a first offence. I disagree. People in known possession of a smuggled gun have the gun for a reason. Even someone who hands off a smuggled gun is putting the safety of the community at risk. At worst, they are assisting with a shooting or a murder. I think members need to focus on how criminals are driving away jobs in our own communities. Some of these criminals may be able to turn their lives around, but that will not happen without serious consequences for their actions. Dangerous criminals learn nothing when we slap them on the wrist for terrible crimes. When they are in prison, I am happy to support programs that can give them a better future. Recent attempts by the Liberal government have not been able to get at the root of the problem. This bill strikes at the people who we know for a fact are criminals.

This bill is one of many steps that need to be taken to make my constituents, and millions of other Canadians, a bit safer. I urge all MPs to vote for this legislation and to continue to do the work needed to make Canada an even safer place to raise a family.

If members have any questions about the legislation, we can iron it out at committee.

[Adam Vaughan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Families]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member across the way for this bill. Regarding the smuggling of handguns in particular, the cost in my riding is beyond description. It is not just members getting caught in the crossfire: the ricochets impact communities right across the GTA and across the country, so I am pleased to stand and speak to this. I look forward to supporting it personally, even if my party does not. I promise that. We have to stop the illegal importation of handguns into this country, and we have to do it as quickly as we can.

My question for the member is whether he has secured a guarantee from his party that an amendment that was made to Bill C-71 will not resurface, which is the “Oops, I forgot I had a gun” excuse. There was an amendment moved by the Conservatives in the previous Parliament on Bill C-71 that said if people forgot to declare their handgun they could simply say they forgot it was in the trunk and get off, which was a loophole so big it would have killed kids right across the country. It was so silly I cannot believe it was even proposed.

Can he assure me that amendment will never see the light of day, and the Conservative Party will back away from the “Oops, I forgot” smuggling amendment?

[Bob Saroya, Conservative, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member is absolutely right. I will work on it at my end. This is a huge problem in the GTA and the major cities. In the last five years in Toronto alone, the member's part of the world, there were 2,415 registered shootings, over 1,000 injuries and 236 deaths. This was in Toronto alone. We need to work on it. In some parts of the world people may not understand it.

If I have the time, I have a quick report from the Canadian Police Association, which states: “The front-line police have first-hand experience in dealing with the consequences of increasing gun violence in our communities and smuggled weapons are significantly the source of that violence. Bill C-238—”

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

I would like to give members the opportunity to ask questions.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Edmonton Manning.

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Madam Speaker, the bill addresses a very important issue: the security and safety of Canadians, especially in major cities. I hear this from across the aisle too. We know arms smuggling is a big problem here because we have such large borders, and we know it is happening every day.

How is the member's bill going to address the safety and security of Canadians, especially in major cities?

[Bob Saroya, Conservative, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Madam Speaker, there are many issues, and organized crime is one of them. We need to clamp down on these issues for the safety and security of Canadians.

I want to read something from the Canadian Police Association. “Front-line police have first-hand experience in dealing with the consequences of increasing gun violence in our communities, and smuggled weapons are a significant source of that violence. Bill C-238 presents a common sense solution that will strengthen penalties for those who are knowingly bringing these illegal—”

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

The hon. member for St. John's East has the floor.

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

Madam Speaker, the smuggling does not occur in Toronto, of course, and we are opposed to these handguns getting loose. What about the border itself? What efforts does the member propose to actually stop smuggling at the border? The Conservative government got rid of over a thousand border guards when it was in power.

[Bob Saroya, Conservative, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Madam Speaker, I will finish the quote and then come back to the question.

“We appreciate the effort to provide the criminal justice system with the tools necessary to combat this serious issue. We are hopeful all members of Parliament will carefully consider this legislation and work quickly and collaboratively to pass Bill C-238.” This is from the president of the Canadian Police Association.

To the hon. member—

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

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Spadina—Fort York.

[Adam Vaughan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Families]

Madam Speaker, when I saw this on the Order Paper and that it was up for discussion tonight, I literally ran from my office to be here. There is nothing that has taken more lives in my life than handguns. In fact, I have been to more funerals in my riding for children killed by illegal handguns than I have for members of my own family in my entire lifetime.

People only have to attend one of these funerals to have their lives changed forever. For those who have attended a sequence of them, one begins to understand that it is not the cliché that is being buried, it is a victim of so many things that have gone wrong that is being buried. The families who have to deal with gun violence in their communities are traumatized. Literally, the number of children suffering from post-traumatic stress disorders in the riding that I represent, in a couple of neighbourhoods, is exceptional.

I will never forget, after a machine gun was used to terrorize a community, seeing a grandmother pull the shrapnel out of a kid's bicycle that now had a flat tire and hand to me so I could give it to the police just in case they could find the individual who had used a submachine gun in a residential neighbourhood.

The most terrifying thing is that in some of our communities, it is not even the residents in the communities who are the targets, it is just the name of the community that is targeted. The media picks up on it and it further traumatizes and stigmatizes the young people who come from some of these neighbourhoods. At the end of the day, it is young people's lives that are being taken by illegal handguns and it is time for it to end, and to end as quickly as possible.

I thank the member opposite for stepping up. We do not normally see good, strong gun control legislation coming from the Conservatives, but in this case, as I said, I do not need a party to tell me how to vote. My residents have told me how to vote and I will be supporting this bill.

The issue, however, is more than just the smuggled guns. By the time a kid picks up a handgun to shoot or be shot, it is too late. So much of what we need to do as a country and, in particular, so much of what we need to do in the city I represent is to give young people better choices, because when those better choices are there, they make the better choice.

I have seen countless examples of young people who have been steered away from a life of trouble, have been taken away from the justice system, put into restorative systems and literally rehabilitated, to the point where they are leaders in bringing down the level of violence that threatens our communities. They have changed the way young people themselves approach the challenges that some of them face and have taken neighbourhoods that had shootings that were just too many to count and returned them to relative peace.

All it takes is people coming out of prison and recycling themselves into a society that does not give them any options except a life of crime sometimes and we end up with a revictimizing of the victims, a revictimizing of these young people and it starts all over again. There are neighbourhoods that are literally on five-year cycles because of the five-year mandatory minimum sentences.

We can almost predict which community, in five years' time, will have a major bust or sweep through it with guns and other elements of criminal activity involved. We know that everyone will be getting out of prison at about the same time, in about five years' time, and it will start all over again. That is why justice reform, changing the way we police this issue, stopping guns at the border and giving kids better choices are conversations I will never back away from. It also requires us to think differently about guns in this country.

I have a sister who ran a logging and tree-planting crew in the interior of B.C. and on Vancouver Island. I understand a shotgun is used as a tool to keep people, especially tree planters, safe in very remote communities. My family was a farming family back in Australia and I certainly understand that sometimes farmers require these tools in order to keep their crops safe or their livestock alive. I understand that and I have no intention of breaking into that.

I have been to the north with my colleague from the Northwest Territories. I have seen the way country food is harvested. I understand the role that hunting plays in sustaining communities from coast to coast to coast, in particular, indigenous communities, but there is no rational reason for anybody in this country to own a handgun. Handguns are made for one reason, and one reason only, and that is to kill people.

They may be needed in the armed forces and policing. Even then I still require convincing continually because I get nervous when I see handguns pulled in policing sometimes. I have been on the police service board, I have been to police funerals and I understand the need to defend people, and police officers have just as much right to go home safely after their shift as any other Canadian.

The culture around handguns is as much what we are trying to stop coming across the border as the politics of handguns and the handguns themselves.

We put this bill in a sequence of legislation that includes strong investments in public housing, strong investments in early learning and childcare, strong investments in youth diversion from the justice system, and strong investments in looking at different ways that sentencing can work to support the re-creation and rebirth of people who have made bad choices in their lives. When we invest in education and jobs, and particularly jobs in racialized communities, the temperature changes. The danger starts to disappear, but it is never entirely gone until the guns are gone.

I have huge problems with any attempt to relax the regulations around guns in this country. I will never back away, as I said, from this conversation. They can put my face on the sides of campaign buses and they can write the hateful letters and terrible emails that are sent when one speaks out against handguns and gun violence in this country. I do not care. I just do not care. I care too much about the people and families in my riding who have had to suffer from bad gun laws in this country for too long.

It is different in rural Canada. I get that, but in urban Canada there is no need, no reason, no requirement and no justification for owning a handgun. Whether it is lost, whether it is stolen or whether it is smuggled, when that gun goes off that bullet does not stop ricocheting in our communities. Families that lost a loved one 15 years ago still walk by corners in my riding and break down in tears. Families that lost a loved one to ricocheting bullets that went through windows, or bounced off bicycles, or went through air conditioners do not forget the sound of bullets entering a living room and do not feel safe in their homes anymore.

We have a responsibility as politicians. We have a responsibility as community leaders. We have a responsibility as neighbours to protect each other from this kind of violence. If this law takes 50 guns off the street, I will support it. If it takes 100 guns off, I will cheer. If it takes 1,000 guns out of our communities, I will be doing nothing other than giving my thanks to the hon. member for the leadership he is providing on this issue.

That being said, we also need to have a frank conversation about mandatory minimum sentences, because we know systemically how they are applied and who they are applied to, and who benefits from justice and who does not when it does not understand context. This is not a plea to be soft on criminals. If someone has picked up a gun and fired it, they are a criminal and will always be a criminal, in my view.

The real challenge, and the most important thing here, is to start to understand that we have an opportunity, a responsibility and a chance to take those bullets, and those handguns, away from our communities and make the lives of police officers safer, make the lives of clerks of the court system safer, make our communities safer, and make politicians safer as we see guns being used against politicians around the world. We have a mutual obligation to work together.

I know that there are people who have a relationship with their guns because they went hunting with their dad. I know that there are communities that need the long gun and the shotgun for food. I understand the arguments that come and the divide that exists between rural Canada and urban Canada, but I plead with people who come from rural ridings to understand that they have to help us stop burying kids in Toronto. We need everyone's help, and we cannot do it alone, with educational programs or background checks. We have to focus on handguns.

I recognize there are some people who like to trap shoot, just as there are some people who like to throw javelins, but someone cannot throw a javelin in downtown Toronto just because they want to. Someone cannot drive a snowmobile in the winter through downtown Toronto just because they want to. If someone has to have a gun and needs to pursue that hobby, please take it out of our cities. Take it away from crowded environments. Take it away from the nightclubs. Take it away from the back alleys. Take it away from a place where it will hurt somebody, because of the damage that guns have been doing, in particular with regard to who is being buried and which communities are being affected.

People are crying for laws on this. They are pleading with us for laws on this and their voices are being largely ignored in this Parliament. It has to end. It is for that reason that I will be voting for this motion, even with my concerns about the mandatory minimum sentences, because we have to get rid of handguns in this country and I will never back down from that position, ever.

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Madam Speaker, I confirm that the Bloc Québécois will support this bill. We will do so in good faith once again. We believe that increasing penalties for crimes such as the possession of unlawfully imported firearms is the right thing to do.

At first glance, the bill is not creating new rights; it is just saying that committing this offence will result in harsher penalties for subsequent offences. One can hardly be against such a proposal.

However, I believe that we should be cautious on two counts. I said I would vote in favour of this bill, but I keep thinking that we must be vigilant about one thing. Personally, I am not keen on the idea of minimum sentencing for crimes. I think that we should trust our justice system and our judges who are capable of assessing situations on a case-by-case basis.

It is rare to find two cases that are exactly the same. There are always subtle differences. These differences must be taken into account, and judges are usually in a position to do so. Yes, it takes mandatory minimums. We are here to legislate, we want to create a legal framework and we agree on that. However, I do have a caveat. Mandatory minimums are not a cure-all. We must be very careful that we do not restrict in any way a judge's latitude to make important distinctions.

I have another caveat. We must not think that by increasing penalties for the possession of illegal firearms we are addressing all problems related to gun control. The opposite is true. This measure will likely have an impact, or at least we hope it will, since we do not want to create legislation for no reason. Still, the impact will be relatively marginal.

The Toronto chief of police recently said that more than half of the gun crimes committed in his city involved guns that were legally purchased. Illegal guns are obviously not a good thing, but although our own firearms market here, in Canada and Quebec, is subject to some restrictions, it enjoys permissions that must be controlled.

Last spring, on May 1, an order was made, and the Canadian government created a regulation that added some 1,500 types of firearms to the prohibited assault-style firearms registry. At the time, it was argued that assault-style firearms were not meant for hunting. Nobody wants to stop a hunter from bagging a deer every year, but nobody needs a machine gun to hunt deer. Many a good hunter will hunt with bow and arrow. The government does not want to ban hunting, but it says that assault weapons, weapons used to kill other humans, weapons of war, do not belong in Quebec or in Canada. The government therefore decided to ban them by order in the spring. Almost all of us agreed on that.

That being said, we look forward to seeing what happens as a result of this ban. I look forward to it, in any case, since the result will be the mandatory buyback program for firearms. Now, we heard our Prime Minister dither on that, and he spoke about an optional buyback program at one point. Someone who purchased an assault weapon that is now banned would not be forced to bring it back if they bought it before it was banned. The government is removing the teeth from this worthwhile gun control process.

This buyback program must be mandatory, and I hope that the government will soon introduce a bill for the optional buyback program. This must be done through a bill. I have not heard any talk about that yet. However, I invite our Liberal colleagues to introduce one as quickly as possible so that we can work on it and finally have a logical next step. We started off in the right direction, but now it seems we are zigzagging a little. I want us to continue in the right direction. I do not want to see any dithering.

In my opinion, the Bloc Québécois would be prepared to vote in favour of a mandatory buyback program for illegal firearms; in fact, we would like that to happen as soon as possible.

In short, we will support my colleague's very virtuous Bill C-238, noting that minimum sentences are not a cure-all. I still have reservations about that, but I think it is justified in this case. We will support it.

Let me add another caveat. Bill C-238 must not be used as an excuse to not go further when it comes to the mandatory buyback program for the firearms that were banned last spring. That is essential in our society.

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

Madam Speaker, I am here to speak to Bill C-238, which introduces an amendment to section 96 of the Criminal Code to impose a mandatory minimum sentence of three years for possession of a firearm known to be illegally imported into Canada and five years for a second offence. Second, it would increase the maximum sentence from 10 to 14 years and then impose a reverse onus for bail conditions for those who are charged.

We are very concerned about gun violence in our streets. We have heard descriptions of it from the member for Markham—Unionville. We know about the terrible situation in Toronto in particular. We have talked about it a lot with the member for Spadina—Fort York and the member for Markham—Unionville. We hear about it all the time.

We want stronger laws to keep guns off our streets. There should be much stronger laws and enforcement to prevent smuggling. We are very concerned about this but nothing is being done about it.

We also believe that it is the job of parliamentarians to pass legislation that is consistent with the Constitution of our country. People have talked about misgivings around mandatory minimums. The problems we have with the bill are not simply matters of misgivings. We know there are certainly problems with them with respect to the application of the laws to different individuals. It is also the obvious and well-known idea that racial discrimination occurs with mandatory minimums. It is one of the reasons why there are more Black and indigenous people in our prisons. That has been spoken about many times.

However, the real reason is that it is unconstitutional. The legislation to increase the length of the sentence from 10 to 14 years shows the courts and the judges that these are to be taken seriously and will result in higher sentences. When we talk about section 96 of the Criminal Code, section 95 of the Criminal Code on guns and possession of guns obtained by crime has similar mandatory minimums: three years for possession of a gun obtained by crime, or prohibited weapons that were armed or loaded or had ammunition readily available. Those mandatory minimums were struck down by the Supreme Court of Canada.

Therefore, they are unconstitutional. They have no force and effect. They will not be given effect. We as parliamentarians ought not to be passing legislation that is clearly unconstitutional.

What is interesting about the case, R. v. Nur, is that the individuals who went to the Supreme Court of Canada had been sentenced to six and seven years in jail. The defence argued that the law was unconstitutional and the court agreed. It threw out the mandatory minimums in that case, but it upheld the sentences for the individuals because they were deemed appropriate. The court also threw it out because there were cases where that sentence would not be appropriate. Therefore, that law was not constitutional.

We have to make laws that are effective but that are also in keeping with our Constitution. In this case, increasing the sentence shows the seriousness of the crime. In fact, by increasing the sentence in Bill C-238, the maximum sentence one could get is up to 14 years. That sentence is higher than the sentence for the smuggling.

The law is a bit odd for that reason. It is unusual to see a law for possession of a smuggled gun to carry a higher sentence than for smuggling itself. However, that is the way the legislation is written. Perhaps that could be dealt with in the committee. The signal it sends with respect to the seriousness of the crime is very important.

To get back to the issue, we want to pass laws that are effective. We want to find ways of stopping gun violence in our cities. We know, of course, that most of the handguns we are talking about come from smuggling, so how do we get them away from the cities? They are not smuggled in Toronto. They are smuggled at the border.

We have seen a few things happen in the last number of years. One is that the number of border guards was drastically reduced by the Conservative government. Over 1,000 border guards were laid off, which was a reduction in the number of members of the CBSA whose job it is to look out for smuggling, and we have not seen any significant programs to tackle that. If we are going to tackle the crime, and if the crime is smuggling, we need to be tackling that crime at the border where the smuggling takes place.

We have not seen any action on that. We need an effective law to actually stop the smuggling, and we need enforcement by officials, police forces and the CBSA to actually do that. We try to stop drugs from coming over the border, and we should be putting an equal effort into ensuring that guns are stopped at the border as well.

In the case of sentencing, of course, it must fit the crime. This is a significant and serious crime, and it is up to the courts to do that. However, if the law we are passing is going to be deemed to have no force or effect, and there is very little doubt that this is an unconstitutional law, then we should not be passing it because it is not going to do any good.

There is little evidence that these mandatory minimums actually act as a deterrence. In fact, we heard the member for Spadina—Fort York talk about the cycle of people coming out of prison every five years and committing crimes again. Obviously, it is not doing any particular good if being in jail for several years is not doing anything other than turning people back out to the streets to commit crimes again.

We have to deal with the root causes of these problems, and they have to be rooted out with the kind of programs that we have been talking about. We also need the efforts by the police to ensure we have less smuggling going on and treat organized crime in a much more serious way.

Another thing that happened in the last five years was that several hundred serious investigations into organized crime by the national police force were laid to one side after the tragic shooting in Ottawa in 2014 of Nathan Cirillo and the subsequent attack on Parliament Hill. Resources from the RCMP were diverted to look out for similar activities across the country, and they were diverted away from the organized crime files they were working on.

In fact, instead of putting more resources in place to do that, they were actually taken away from organized crime files. The result was, and this has been demonstrated, over the next several years gang activity, mafia-style activity and organized crime activity actually increased. There was more access to guns and cash, and that increased as a result of a lack of enforcement.

We have to deal with enforcement. We have to deal with the root causes of gun violence, and we have to make sure we have laws that are actually constitutional. We are members of the Parliament of Canada. We must have respect for the constitution of our country and pass laws that are actually effective and that deal with the problem. Let us do that.

It has been suggested, for example, by the member for Markham—Unionville, that it is effective to have people in jail for a few days after being arrested for these things. Well, that is a very easy thing to fix, is it not? We do not have to put in laws that are unconstitutional to do that. If it is demonstrated that there ought to be a cooling-off period, that could be put into law as well.

Let us find the tools to do the job. Let us try to ensure we have laws that are not only effective, but also constitutional. Let us do the job right, and see if we can work together to make that happen.

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am honoured to rise for Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon to speak to Bill C-238, put forward by my colleague from Markham—Unionville. I want to thank the member for his work on this file and the speech he gave earlier this evening.

Bill C-238, an act to amend the Criminal Code, would increase the mandatory minimum penalty for the possession of a smuggled firearm to three years for the first offence and to five years for the second and subsequent offences, with a 14-year maximum. It would also amend the Criminal Code to automatically deny bail for these offenders in order to stop the catch and release of criminals, a circumstance that our hard-working police and Crown prosecutors experience far too often. If someone is arrested carrying a smuggled firearm, they would be required to make the argument to a judge as to why they deserve to be let back into the community. Quite frankly, they should not get to go home. They deserve jail, not bail.

Some of my parliamentary colleagues may have issues with the implementation of mandatory minimums, as we have heard this evening. I must echo the sentiment of my colleague from Markham—Unionville. Those in known possession of a smuggled firearm have it for a violent reason and their ill intent is to cause harm or death to another. That is a good enough reason for me. This cannot be tolerated in our society, and the prison time is more than warranted.

Indeed, this type of bail is already in the Criminal Code for other crimes, such as hostage taking, armed robbery or extortion with a firearm. This private member's bill ensures the punishment fits the crime. It is a common-sense approach to addressing real threats to Canadians' public safety.

Unlike the Liberal government, the Conservatives know that law-abiding firearm owners are not the problem. Contrary to Liberal claims about our approach, we know there is a problem, and we are putting forward real solutions to address it. Gun violence affects far too many people in our communities.

We heard the reports from my colleague about the untenable situation in the greater Toronto area. Sadly, on the other side of our country, even in Abbotsford and Mission, circumstances are similar. I personally know too many families who have tragically lost loved ones to gun violence.

The perpetrators of this violence did not go through the Canadian firearms safety program. They did not take the courses required to apply for a firearms licence. They did not apply for a possession and acquisition licence or a restricted possession and acquisition licence. They did not have their background investigated, their mental health checked or their domestic partner consulted. The perpetrators are not subject to the continuous eligibility screening that Canadian firearms licence-holders undergo constantly, where their names are run through the RCMP system daily to ensure that no crimes have been committed. They did not purchase their firearms from a Canadian retailer. We already have a robust gun control system in place that works, and the members opposite need to look at the way we treat criminals.

We all know that firearms laws are much less stringent in the United States. We also know that the border between Canada and the U.S. is the longest undefended border in the world. In my hometown of Abbotsford, B.C., the border is literally a ditch separating parallel farm fields in the two countries. My opa's farm straddled the border, a field on the Canadian side and a field on the American side. As kids, we would hop back and forth for fun. It does not take a genius to realize these two realities are ready for abuse and conducive to gun smuggling.

No matter how draconian the Liberal government gets with domestic firearms regulations, no matter how much they trample on the freedoms of law-abiding Canadians, the reality is that the U.S. is our neighbour. It will always be easier for criminals to source weapons from the U.S. and illegally import them to Canada.

The federal government must act accordingly. In the last election, we heard from officers of the Canada Border Services Agency that they did not have the tools to effectively interdict illegal weapons at the border. Recently, the Minister of Public Safety stated that his government would be doing more on this issue. I look forward to seeing that progress.

The Liberal government can move rapidly to prohibit Canadians from using legally acquired private property in the middle of a pandemic, doing so because it was politically expedient, but it moves like molasses when it comes to addressing this real issue.

This is an emotionally charged matter, and it is for my constituents, but for that very reason it needs to be addressed in a thoughtful, targeted manner based on real data and not emotion. We owe that to those who have been killed by gun violence and to their families. As legislators we are tasked with the honour and privilege of enacting legislation for the betterment of Canadians. However, that comes with the responsibility to ensure that legislation is sound, that it addresses an actual issue and that it will deliver the results it is intended to.

Part of that legislative process is the opportunity to debate the legislation in this place, at committee and in the other place. Such a debate was not able to take place, however, when on May 1, the Liberal government's order in council turned hundreds of thousands of law-abiding Canadians into criminals. However, Canadians are pushing back. Over 58,000 of them signed a petition tabled by the member for Cariboo—Prince George, highlighting the ridiculous and internally contradictory May 1 OIC and calling for its repeal.

Another 230,000 Canadians signed a petition tabled by the member for Calgary Nose Hill, which also called for the federal government to scrap the OIC and instead pass legislation actually targeting criminals that stops the smuggling of firearms into Canada and goes after those who illegally acquire firearms. This sounds a lot like what we are proposing in this legislation.

Numerous legal challenges against the Liberal government's firearm ban also continue to pile up, arguing among other things that the Prime Minister contravened the Firearms Act when he immediately outlawed more than 1,500 firearms through regulatory decree rather than a legislative process, and that governments cannot use an order in council to outlaw firearms used for sporting or hunting purposes, which would include the vast majority of firearms listed in the May 1 directive.

The impact of this ban on small businesses has also been devastating, as if COVID-19 restrictions were not bad enough. With all of these shortcomings, I and my Conservative colleagues are committed, as the government-in-waiting, to engage with difficult issues, to consult with Canadians and to take hard decisions. That is why I solicited my constituents for their input on Bill C-238. I distributed a survey and requested their feedback. Eighty-four per cent of respondents ranked stopping illegal guns from being smuggled into Canada as very important. The remaining 16% ranked it as the second highest level of importance when it came to their safety and that of their families.

The same high number, 84%, agreed with the bill that bail should be revoked for those charged with the possession of an illegally smuggled firearm. The Conservative Party has a plan to safeguard Canadians' public safety and reduce violent gun crime. Unlike the Liberal government, we would not waste time and money harassing law-abiding gun owners and confiscating their legally acquired private property as part of a virtue-signalling exercise that will have zero impact on reducing crime.

What percentage of respondents agreed with the Liberal approach? It was 5%. The NDP's approach, a carbon copy of the Liberals', received the same level of support, 5%, whereas 60% of respondents agreed with the Conservative Party of Canada's plan.

This private member's bill is just one important component of a broader plan that needs to take place to protect public safety. I encourage my colleagues from all parties to review Bill C-238 on its merits and send it to committee for further study.

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

Madam Speaker, this morning is when I heard that the member was going to be bringing forward the legislation. I had this discussion about conflicting messages. There is a bit of a conflicting message. I want to share with members something that somewhat surprised me when I found out this had taken place in committee.

We had Bill C-71, something with which Conservatives had a great deal of difficulty. From what I understand, at the committee stage, there was an amendment brought forward. I am sure members will see the relevancy to this legislation, because this legislation seems to be at odds with what Conservatives were proposing through an amendment.

In the amendment to Bill C-71, the act is amended and this is in essence what it said. The act would be amended to the following, referencing section 11:

Despite sections 109 and 111, no person guilty of an offence set out in those sections is liable to imprisonment if, in the commission of the offence, the person causes no bodily harm to another person.

Sections 109 and 111 in the Firearms Act refer to deliberately lying in order to get a firearms licence, tampering with firearms licence or registration certificate, operating an illegal firing range, ensuring prohibited firearms are safely stored and, this one I find interesting, penalties for lying to a customs officer about a firearm or for falsifying a customs officer's confirmation document.

They wanted to remove penalties for cross-border trafficking. It seems to me that it makes a reference. The member from Red Deer was one of the members. I am not too sure if the member introducing the bill was at that committee. When we take into consideration some of the previous actions of the Conservatives, one could be a little surprised in terms of the legislation that we have here today.

Canadians are genuinely concerned. As my colleague from Toronto talked about earlier, with a great deal of passion, there are many members of this Parliament who are very passionate because they have directly or indirectly seen the harm of governments' not taking actions that are necessary in order to make our communities safer.

I think, for example, of when the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness stands up and talks about the banning of military assault-style weapons as something that Canadians want to see, yet on the Conservative opposition benches we are constantly criticized for that. It is almost as if many Conservatives are not really understanding the issue that we are trying to address: safer communities. Some of the actions that we have taken as a government, I believe, reinforce it, yet we get mixed messaging coming from the Conservative ranks.

We recognize that smuggling is a very serious issue, and yet Stephen Harper cut hundreds of millions of dollars from Canada border control officers. These are the types of things that send mixed messages, and I think it is because the Conservatives' primary concern is more about spin than it is about—

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

The hon. member for Edmonton West.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Madam Speaker, while I appreciate my colleague's wild tales and inaccuracies about the cuts, I suggest he actually read the public accounts and see that it was the Liberals who had massive cuts. I would perhaps suggest the member stick to the matter at hand, which is—

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

That is a matter for debate. Let us let the member finish. He has 30 seconds.

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, it is about the border and the $390-million cut. That is a fact. The Conservatives might want to try to hide from it, but to say that it did not have an impact in terms of the services that we can provide at the borders and we are concerned about smuggling, and—

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

The time provided for the consideration of private members' business has now expired, and the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the Order Paper.