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.

Conversion Therapy

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

Mr. Speaker, the next petition highlights concerns associated with the definition of conversion therapy that was used in Bill C-6, in the last Parliament. Those concerns persist with respect with Bill C-4. The petitioners call on the House of Commons to ban all practices designed to coerce or degrade persons into changing their sexual orientation or gender identity. It also calls on the government to ensure that the definition is accurate, reflects the correct definition of conversion therapy and does not ban, for instance, private conversations that would take place that are not related to conversion therapy.

Criminal Code

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Madam Speaker, what a joy it is to be back in the House and be here for the rare occurrence of hearing the member for Winnipeg North speak. It happens about as often as a full eclipse of the sun. It is amazing. I am going to tell my grandkids that I was here to hear the member speak. It is actually disappointing that the Liberals have so many new members, yet time and again it is the same chap who stands up, as much as I do understand.

I will be sharing my time today with the member for Cumberland—Colchester, who is one of the new members we are allowing to speak.

We are talking about Bill C-3 today. I am glad to get a chance to get a word in edgewise, with the member across the way, but also to speak before the Liberals perhaps prorogue Parliament, call another snap election or use any other of their usual ploys to avoid accountability.

Bill C-3 is probably a needed bill, but it is an odd bill. Half is related to justice and the other half to the Canada Labour Code. I am not sure why the Liberals have put the two of them together instead of presenting them to the House separately. I hate to think doing it this way is a typical Liberal ploy, or that they are hoping someone will object to part of it, so they can scream and yell and say we are anti-health care workers. I know I am being cynical because there is no way in the world they would ever consider doing that. They would never try to wedge folks.

We have heard repeatedly from the government, and our colleagues from the NDP and the Bloc, about how much this bill is needed. Why now? Why not a year ago? Why not six years ago with the Canada Labour Code? Why have the Liberals waited? They have had the backing and support of all the parties during the COVID crisis to put through almost everything with unanimous consent. Why would they wait so long?

The labour changes the bill mentions easily could have been brought in before. Their delay reminds me of a great Seinfeld episode in which Newman, the postal worker and Seinfeld's nemesis, helps to kidnap Elaine's neighbour's dog and eventually gets caught. When a policeman comes to arrest him, he, à la son of Sam, asks what took him so long. I have to ask the same of the government. If it was such a priority, why would it wait?

We could have had this before the House, debated it and sent it to committee long ago. The election took place on September 21 and we waited two full months to sit in the House again. In the U.K., Boris Johnson was able to re-form the House and get its Parliament back to work in six days. It took the government two months just to get us here.

We could have easily dealt with Bill C-2. In the House today during question period, we heard the Liberals tell the Conservatives to get on side and pass Bill C-2. We heard them say in debate that we should help small businesses and pass Bill C-2. Why did they not convene Parliament to get us back to work immediately so we could pass Bill C-2? It is the same with Bill C-3.

With respect to Bill C-4 on conversion therapy, people thought it was Bill C-6 or Bill C-8, because it was brought to the House several times. It was killed when the government prorogued Parliament. It was killed again when it called an early election, which no one really wanted and was not needed, as we ended up the same. If it were that important, why did the Liberals not try to pass the conversion therapy bill earlier? They had six years to bring it in.

One bill I remember they brought through in 2017 as a higher priority than the conversion therapy was Bill C-24. At the time, and I was using another Seinfeld quote, I called it “a bill about nothing”. Basically, the bill changed the bank account the old ministers of state were paid from in the estimates process. I think it also changed the official name on the cheques from Public Works to PSPC.

This was a bill we debated in the House and tied up the committee with. Somehow the government decided that was more important than a conversion therapy bill. They had been paid that way since Confederation. The ministers of state were paid out of one small bank account, and the other ministers, technically the government, were paid out of another. We could have continued doing that and brought the conversion therapy bill then.

The reality is this: The government is not serious about how it puts forward its legislation. It delays, obfuscates, throws it out and then demands that opposition parties get on board and hurry up to pass it, when it could have done that a long time ago.

Generally, everyone supports the first part of the bill, on criminalizing threats toward health care workers. We have all seen, during the election, the blocking of ambulances from getting to hospitals and the harassing of health care workers. We have heard the horrible stories from my colleague for Timmins—James Bay, where a small-town doctor, vitally needed, was chased out of his community by these threats. We just heard from him about the single mother who was horrifyingly harassed just for getting a vaccine.

Therefore, perhaps we need this legislation, but I would like to hear more details. Apparently, a lot of this is covered already under provincial or other laws. I would like to see how the bill would strengthen the protection for our doctors and nurses and, as my colleague mentioned, for people who are just going for a vaccine. There are the doctors and nurses we have to protect, but we also have to protect Canadians who are trying to access health care facilities.

During the election, we Conservatives had, as part of our election plan, the critical infrastructure protection act. This would provide additional security from those protesting vital infrastructure, such as our hospitals and our rail and pipelines. We saw what just happened in B.C., with its supply chain devastated because of the cuts to the CN and CP rails. That was obviously an act of nature as opposed to protests, but protests can be just as devastating, and we have seen it be just as devastating to our health care when we do not have consequences. I hope my colleagues in the House will eventually adopt a law that would protect other vital infrastructure besides our hospitals, and also our supply lines.

Unfortunately, from day one, we have had mixed messaging from this government regarding vaccines and the COVID crisis, and it has led to confusion, fear and anger. None of this, nothing this government or anyone else has done, excuses the violence and harassment of our health care workers, doctors and people trying to access health care. However, what the government has done has not helped. When Canadians needed certainty, leadership and consistency, we got false information from the government, like we saw with the Deputy Prime Minister being admonished for fake news on Twitter.

It is funny. We heard earlier that my colleague, the member for Winnipeg North, when he was out door-knocking, was surprised by the anger from the vax versus the anti-vax people. I felt the same thing. We had people threatening us with a shotgun if we dared come with that. We have all felt it, but he was surprised. I want to read something from the National Post for the member. It said that in January, the Prime Minister had argued against mandatory vaccines as “divisive” in our “community and country”. It said that in March, he mused about the inequality and inequity of vaccine passports. In July, he said there would be no mandatory vaccines. However, two weeks later, apparently led by internal polling that showed he could divide the country for political gain, he announced a mandatory vaccine, cynically just in time.

The article goes on to say that the Prime Minister's “flip flop on vaccine mandates” exemplifies “a governing philosophy based on political calculus”.

This is not governing based on bringing us together, or on trying to get the unvaccinated vaxxed by convincing them of how good vaccines are and how they will lead us out of the troubles we are in. There is nothing about that. It is using it based on polling to create divisiveness in Canada for political gain.

The Prime Minister, when speaking out against protesters, used the term “you people” when describing the protesters. Now, I might perhaps, against some of the people who are blocking hospitals, have used harsher language, but he used the term “you people”. Now, I note for our feminist Prime Minister that the website everydayfeminism.com says “you people” is a racially coded phrase. Again, nothing the Prime Minister has done excuses the protesters and their actions, but nothing the Prime Minister has done has gone to alleviate the divisions in Canada. He has used this to divide the country.

Apparently I am out of time, so I will let it go and perhaps leave it open to questions and comments to address the second part of the bill.

Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we can look at all the bills and go over their history. I have no problem with that.

We could talk about Bill C-7 on medical assistance in dying. The Conservative Party blocked that bill, as my colleague said. The Bloc Québécois, meanwhile, decided to support the bill and move it forward.

No, the Conservatives' approach to Bill C-6 was not exemplary. However, an election should not be called simply because one or two bills get stuck, when many bills are going through without a hitch. I know; I was there.

Yes, the Conservatives could take a good hard look at themselves when it comes to this bill. They have not been effective, one could say, but the fact remains that this is a democracy. The Conservatives were against the bill and they showed it.

What I am trying to say is that when there is a strong, robust, intelligent and effective legislative agenda, things go well. That was the problem in the last Parliament. The government did not get the job done.

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to let you know that I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Repentigny.

If I had a title for my speech, it would be “autopsy of a failure”. Before we talk about the throne speech, let us go back in time, to last spring. I would remind my colleagues that we were in a pandemic last spring. There was only one MP on the other side. I say this often, because I cannot believe it. There was just the member for Kingston and the Islands. All the other Liberal Party members were in their basements or some such place. They were afraid of the pandemic. They were shaking under their desks. Once in a while, the Prime Minister would come and visit. I remember that we would give a start of surprise when we saw him coming. We were shocked to see that there were other Liberals in that party. He would arrive from time to time and answer questions.

Then, things improved. Quebec began opening up. We thought the Liberals would eventually see common sense. We talked about it with their leader and their whip. They said that they could not come to the House, that the situation was still terrible and that there was still a pandemic. They continued to hide under their desks in the basement. They said that they could not do it, that they could not handle the light of day and that they needed to adapt.

It made no sense. That was the Liberal approach. They were afraid of the pandemic.

People say a lot of things, but the Prime Minister can be very persuasive. He convinced those folks over there that it was time to call an election. Even though we were in a fourth wave of the pandemic, he convinced them that the time was right. Even though it was only two years after the previous election, it was the right time to meet the public. An election had to be called, the situation was critical, there was an emergency on the home front.

At the end of the day, one by one, Liberal Party members took the bait. They thought they were going to walk around, meet with people and shake their hands. Soon they were making human pyramids. They were happy; they were finally out.

They told people that they were calling an election and that everybody would have to line up to vote. We were in the fourth wave of the pandemic, but no big deal. They said they could not make Parliament work because of their minority situation, that it was not going well and that the opposition was behaving outrageously. They all said that.

I have been the House leader of the Bloc Québécois since 2019, and I remember that everything was going well. The opposition was making its contribution. There were discussions happening, and that was great. Bills were being improved because we were all working together. I would say that the main problem during that time was more the Liberal government's lack of organization in developing its parliamentary strategy and legislative agenda than the opposition from the opposition parties.

There were bills on the table, and the work was getting done. Bill C‑10 got all the way to the Senate. In Quebec, we had been waiting for years for the web giants to contribute to the culture sector. The bill died in the Senate because of the election. Bill C‑216 was meant to ensure that supply management would be protected in future trade agreements. It was on track. Everything was going well. Bill C‑6 on conversion therapy was almost wrapped up. The Liberals are coming back to that now with another bill.

The bill that made pensioners first in line to get paid when a company goes bankrupt was also coming along nicely. The one that made sure that someone with a serious illness was entitled to 50 weeks of EI benefits was moving forward. That is something to be expected, it makes sense, but they decided to throw it all away and call an election, because time was of the essence.

The Prime Minister looked people straight in the eye and told them that it was urgent, that the government needed their opinion because otherwise horrible things lay ahead. The public voted, and almost all members are back, except for a few changes.

The public said to stop fooling around, stop with the elections and get back to work. They said to get back to work because we are in a pandemic. That is what the public said. The public told the government to get its act together and return to Parliament.

Now the Liberals are returning to Parliament. They wanted a majority government, but that turned out to be a flop. Now they are saying that we need to take the bull by the horns, that it is extremely important, that it is urgent.

We sat around for two months. We waited for Parliament to be recalled for two months. Our clothes were out of style by the time we came back here.

They came back, claiming that the throne speech would be as amazing as a kangaroo on a trampoline and that we would have to wait and see. People were saying that the speech would be amazing, that it would be the highlight of the decade.

When we heard the speech, however, there was nothing there. The government should be ashamed of having given birth to a mouse. It is not even a mouse; it is a flea and you would need a microscope just to see what is there. No matter how many times you read it, there is nothing there.

In the end, we did find one thing. We learned that the government does not like its jurisdictions and prefers to interfere in provincial ones. The government asked itself how it could interfere in Quebec's and the provinces' jurisdictions. Someone a little smarter said that the provinces and Quebec would be stunned if the government were to interfere in health care.

The government talks about health but fails to mention that provincial health care systems are underfunded because the federal government has been starving them for more than 20 years. The federal government is saying that it is going to stop giving the provinces the money they deserve and is going starve them little by little. At some point, however, all hell is going to break loose. That is when the federal government will step in and say that the provinces do not know how to manage health care and that there are all kinds of problems in the sector.

However, the federal government has been starving the provinces' and Quebec's health care systems for 20 years. It is quite simple. The government must be told to increase payments as it should be doing and to increase transfers to 35% of the cost of health care for everyone in Canada and Quebec. Everyone agrees on this amount except for the federal government, which does not understand. The federal government is telling itself that it will say that the provinces are not doing a good job, so that it can go ahead and interfere in their jurisdictions.

The federal government is steadfast, and it does not like its jurisdictions. The rail crisis fell under federal jurisdiction, but it let the provinces deal with it. It says it will let the City of Montreal and Quebec deal with the firearms issue. When an issue falls under its jurisdiction, it does not want to deal with it, but it will meddle in the jurisdictions of Quebec and the provinces. If the Prime Minister wanted to run a provincial government, all he had to do was stand for election in British Columbia. However, he is the Prime Minister of Canada.

The federal government thought it came up with a good idea by announcing that it needs a minister responsible for mental health, an area that falls under the jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces. However, the federal government said that it would be all right and that it would be fun. It went ahead with it.

This morning, despite being comfortably seated, I fell right off my chair when the leader of the official opposition said a minister responsible for mental health was a good idea. The Conservatives have been saying for years that they do not want to interfere in areas under the jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces. Then, this morning, the leader of the official opposition said he was disappointed and ready to fight. The thing is, one cannot respect the provinces' jurisdiction by leaving them alone and support the idea of a minister responsible for mental health at the same time. That does not work, but that is what the Conservatives did, and they thought it was pretty great. Then they said it was because the government was no good. I think the root of the problem is not that the government is not good; it is that it did not do its basic job.

Quebeckers send half their taxes to Ottawa because they want to be taken care of during a pandemic that makes the problem even worse. What Quebec and Quebeckers want is to see the money they send to Ottawa flowing back to where it is needed: health care. The federal government does not have the authority to handle health care. It has never done so. It has never paid a doctor or a nurse, and it has almost never run a hospital, so it must send that money to the people with expertise in this area: my government, the Government of Quebec. That is what the Bloc Québécois wants.

We are also thinking about seniors, who suffered in isolation, who were the most affected by the pandemic in terms of health, who are on a fixed income and who are now being financially strangled by inflation. The only thing the federal government did was divide them into two classes. It said that it would help seniors 75 and up, but seniors 65 to 75 would have to wait.

In the House, three ministers said that if seniors 65 to 75 did not have the means to live comfortably, they would have to go back to work. Seriously? The federal Liberal government wants to send people 65 to 75 back to work? This government is already worn out only two months in. Good thing it spent two months resting, or it would be dead.

With a throne speech like that, I think the opposition will have its work cut out for it.

Criminal Code

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

It being 3:17 p.m., pursuant to the order made on Monday, January 25, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at third reading stage of Bill C-6.

Call in the members.

The House resumed from June 21 consideration of the motion that Bill C-6, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (conversion therapy), be read the third time and passed.

Budget Implementation Act, 2021, No. 1

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

Madam Speaker, what a pleasure it is to address the House on such an important piece of legislation. To be very clear, in budget 2021 the government has outlined a plan to allow us to finish the fight against COVID-19, heal the wounds left by the COVID-19 recession as much as we can, and ultimately create more jobs and prosperity for Canadians in the days and decades to come.

This is critically important legislation, and we would encourage all members of all political stripes to support it. Within it is a continuation of the government's focus on the pandemic. In the last federal election, Canadians wanted Parliament to work well together. They wanted us to come together to do the things that were necessary to facilitate a more positive environment for all Canadians, and being thrown into a pandemic made the priority fighting COVID-19: the coronavirus.

From the very beginning, our Prime Minister and this government have made it very clear that fighting the pandemic was our number one priority. We put into place a team Canada approach and brought together all kinds of stakeholders including different levels of government, indigenous leaders, individuals, non-profit organizations and private companies. We brought them all in to hopefully minimize the negative impact of the coronavirus.

It is because of those consultations and working with Canadians that Canada is in an excellent position today to maximize a recovery. The statistics will clearly demonstrate that. We have a government that has worked day in and day out, seven days a week, and is led by a Prime Minister who is truly committed to making Canada a better community.

I have, over the last number of months, witnessed a great deal of frustration from the opposition, in particular the Conservative opposition. The Conservatives continuously attempt to frustrate the process on the floor of the House of Commons. There was a time when all parties inside the chamber worked together to pass necessary legislation, and worked together to come up with ideas and ways to modify things so we could better support individuals and businesses in Canada. However, that time has long passed. The degree to which we see political partisanship on the floor of the House of Commons today is really quite sad.

Yesterday was embarrassing. I know many, if not all, of my colleagues found it embarrassing and humiliating to see one of Canada's most noble civil servants at the bar on the floor of the House of Commons. The New Democrats and the Bloc joined with the Conservatives to humiliate a civil servant who should be applauded for his efforts over the last 12 months. He was publicly humiliated by being addressed in the manner he was, on the floor of the House of Commons, and it was distasteful. I say shame to the NDP, the Bloc and the Conservatives.

There were alternatives. If they did not want to take shots at the civil service, they could have dealt with it in other ways. For example, the Minister of Health provided the unredacted information to the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians, which was made up of parliamentarians from all political parties. Instead of passing the motion they did, they could have passed a motion for that committee to table the documents they wanted from the civil service. After all, the civil service provided the unredacted copies to that committee, not to mention that documents that had been redacted for national interest and security reasons were sent to another standing committee.

The political partisanship we are seeing today is making the chamber, for all intents and purposes, dysfunctional. We have seen the official opposition, less than a week ago, come to the floor of the House of Commons and within an hour of debate attempt to shut down Parliament for the day. It actually moved a motion to adjourn the House. The opposition is oozing with hypocrisy. On the one hand, it criticizes the government for not allowing enough time for debate, and on the other hand it tries to shut down the chamber in order to prevent debate.

If we were to look up the definitions of the words “hypocrisy” and “irony” in Webster's, which I have not, I wonder if they would describe what we are seeing from the opposition party, which moves concurrence debate, not once or twice but on many occasions, so that the government is not able to move forward on legislation, including Bill C-30, which we are debating today. That legislation is there to support Canadians from coast to coast to coast. Members of the Liberal caucus have fought day in and day out to ensure those voices are heard, brought to Ottawa and ultimately formulating policy that will take Canada to the next level. However, we have an official opposition that I would suggest has gone too far with respect to its resistance and destructive force on the floor of the House of Commons.

I have stated before that I have been a parliamentarian for approximately 30 years, the vast majority of which were in opposition. I am very much aware of how important it is that we protect the interests of opposition members and their rights. I am very much aware of the tactics opposition parties will use, but at a time when Canadians need us to work together, we have an official opposition that is acting as an obstructive force. When we talk about how Bill C-30 will be there to support small businesses and put money in the pockets of Canadians so they have the disposable income necessary to pay the bills that are absolutely essential, the Conservative Party continues to play that destructive role. It continues to focus on character assassination and on ways to make something out of something that is often not real. The Conservatives are more concerned about political partisanship than getting down to work, which was clearly demonstrated last Thursday. They are more concerned about character assassination, as we saw the official opposition, with the unholy opposition alliance, take personal shots at a national hero, someone we all know as the Minister of National Defence. This is unacceptable behaviour we are witnessing.

We have critically important legislation before the House. We can think about the types of things Bill C-30 would do for Canadians. If we want to prevent bankruptcies from taking place, we need to support this legislation, as it supports small businesses through the extension of the wage subsidy program, a program that has helped millions of Canadians, supporting tens of thousands of businesses from coast to coast to coast.

This is the type of legislation that we are actually debating today. It is not the only progressive, good, solid legislation that we have brought forward. Yesterday, through a closure motion, we were able to push through Bill C-10. We can imagine that legislation not being updated for 30 years. It is a major overhaul. We can think about what the Internet looked like 30 years ago, compared to today.

The Liberal government understands, especially during this pandemic, and we see it in the budget, the importance of our arts community, whether it was with Bill C-10 yesterday, where the government had to push hard to get it through, or the budget implementation bill today, where we are again having to use time allocation. It is not because we want to, but because we have to.

If we do not take measures of this nature, the legislation would not pass. The opposition parties, combined, often demonstrate that if the government is not prepared to take the actions it is taking, we would not get legislation through this House. The opposition parties want to focus on electioneering. We have been very clear, as the Prime Minister has stated, that our priority is the pandemic and taking the actions necessary in order to serve Canadians on the issue. It is the opposition parties that continuously talk about elections.

In my many years as a parliamentarian, in the month of June we have often seen legislation passing. It happens. It is a part of governance. One would expect to see a higher sense of co-operation from opposition parties, in particular from the official opposition party, not the obstruction that members have witnessed, not the humiliation that we have seen on the floor of the House of Commons at times.

Liberal members of the House are prepared to continue to work toward serving Canadians by passing the legislation that is necessary before the summer break. We still have time to address other pieces of legislation. Minutes prior to going into this debate, I was on a conference call in regard to Bill C-19. Again, it is an important piece of legislation. I challenge my colleagues on the opposition benches to come forward and say that we should get that legislation passed so that it could go to the Senate.

I mentioned important progressive pieces of legislation, and the one that comes to my mind, first and foremost, is this legislation, Bill C-30. Next to that, we talk a lot about Bill C-6, on conversion therapy. We talk a lot about Bill C-10, dealing with the modernization of broadcasting and the Internet, and going after some of these large Internet companies.

We talk about Bill C-12 and net zero, about our environment. We can check with Canadians and see what they have to say about our environment and look at the actions taken by opposition parties in preventing the types of progressive legislation we are attempting to move forward with.

We understand that not all legislation is going to be passed. We are not saying the opposition has to pass everything. We realize that in a normal situation not all government legislation is going to pass in the time frame we have set forth, given the very nature of the pandemic, but it is not unrealistic for any government, minority or majority, to anticipate that there would be a higher sense of co-operation in dealing with the passing of specific pieces of legislation. Bill C-30 is definitely one of those pieces of legislation.

Unfortunately, some opposition members will have the tenacity to say they are being limited and are unable to speak to and address this particular important piece of legislation. Chances are we are going to hear them say that. To those members, I would suggest they look at the behaviour of the Conservative official opposition and remind them of the Conservative opposition's attempts to delay, whether it is through adjourning debates, calling for votes on those kinds of proceedings, concurrence motions or using questions of privilege and points of order as a way to filibuster, which all happen to be during government business.

Bill C-3 was a bill that initially came forward a number of years ago from Rona Ambrose, the then leader of the Conservative Party, about judges. We can look at the amount of debate that occurred on that piece of legislation. It is legislation that could have and should have passed the House with minimal debate. It was hours and hours, days, of debate. Even though the Conservatives supported the legislation, even back then they did not want to have the government passing legislation.

Their purpose is to frustrate the government, prevent the government from being able to pass legislation, and then criticize us for not being able to pass legislation. What hypocrisy this is. Sadly, over the last week or so, we have seen the other opposition parties buy into what the Conservative opposition is doing, which has made it even more difficult.

As much as the unholy alliance of opposition parties continues to do these things and frustrate the floor of the House, I can assure Canadians that, whether it is this Prime Minister or my fellow members of Parliament within the caucus, we will continue day in, day out to focus our attention on the pandemic and minimizing its negative impacts.

We are seeing results. Over 32 million vaccine doses have been administered to Canadians. We are number one in first doses in the world. We have close to 35 million doses already in Canada, and we will have 50 million before the end of the month. Canada is positioning itself well, even with the frustration coming from opposition parties. We will continue to remain focused on serving Canadians, and Bill C-30 is an excellent example of the way in which we are going to ensure that Canadians get out of this in a better position. We are building back better for all Canadians.

Motions in amendment

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

Madam Speaker, it is a shame that I only get 10 minutes to speak to this legislation, with all those amendments. I will try to be as concise as I can and provide some thoughts in regard to the last speech and, in particular, that last amazing question from the Conservative member.

It is important to recognize at the beginning that the very core of Bill C-10, from my perspective and I believer the way my caucus colleagues look at it, is to promote Canadian music, storytelling and creative works. The bill is about fairness and getting American web giants to pay their fair share and contribute to our cultural sector. That is absolutely necessary.

Before I expand on that, it is a bit much to hear the Conservatives refer the legislative agenda and say that it has been mismanaged. It is somewhat ridiculous that the Conservative members would even suggest such a thing when they are at the core of the problem. The Conservatives will say that they do not have enough time to debate and will ask why the government is bringing in different forms of time allocation, yet it is the Conservative Party that consistently wastes time on the floor of the House of Commons. Last Thursday, we were just getting under way and the Conservatives tried to adjourn debate for the day, they wanted to stop debate. They did not want to work anymore, and we were only on a Thursday morning.

What about the motions for concurrence the Conservative Party continuously raise? What about the raising of privileges and points of order as a mechanism to filibuster on the floor of the House of Commons? Government business, unlike Private Members' Business or opposition days, has a process that makes it very vulnerable to opposition parties. Whenever there are 12 or more members, it makes it very difficult for government to pass legislation if one of those opposition parties wants to make it difficult.

The Conservative Party of Canada members in the House of Commons have made it their mission to prevent the government from passing anything. We have seen that destructive force in the House of Commons. I do not think they have a case whatsoever to complain about debate times on pieces of legislation. We tried on numerous occasions to bring certain bills up or to extend hours to facilitate their needs, but the Conservatives have said that if they cannot get what they want, they will waste time. The government then has to bring in some form of closure or time allocation or nothing will ever get passed. We have seen that, and Bill C-10 is one example. They need to wake up.

The minister has done a fantastic job of bringing forward to the House legislation that would modernize an act that has not been modernized for three decades. Is it absolutely perfect? There was some need to make some modifications. Some of those modifications have, in fact, occurred. However, the spin that the Conservatives put on this is that it is terrible legislation that should never, ever see the light of day. We know the legislation would never be able to pass if it did not get the support from at least one opposition party.

It is not the Government of Canada ramming the legislation through. Often it feels as if it is the Government of Canada pleading and begging opposition to recognize the value and try to drum up support within the House. Fortunately, once again, at least one political party is prepared to see this legislation advance. I truly do appreciate it.

Bill C-10, as I said, is, at the core, promoting Canadian music, storytelling and creative work. The Conservatives argue against it, that somehow it limits freedom of speech, and they cite a number of examples. However, the Department of Justice has done an analysis of the legislation and has clearly indicated that it is consistent with the charter guarantee of freedom of speech, and that is coming from civil servants.

I wish the Conservatives would recognize that the bill would ensure that the act would not apply to users of social media services or to social media services themselves for content posted by their users. However, to listen to what the Conservatives are saying, one would not think that, because it does not fit their narrative.

The bill aims to update some critical elements of the broadcasting policy for Canada. For example, it would ensure that the creation of Canadian content is reflective of Canadian society and accessible to all Canadians. The bill would also amend the act to ensure that there is a greater account for things such as indigenous cultures and languages. It would also recognize that Canada's broadcasting system should serve the needs and interests of all Canadians, including racialized communities and our very diverse ethnocultural backgrounds, socioeconomic status, abilities, disabilities, sexual orientations, gender identities and expressions of age.

I can tell my Conservative friends, in particular, that things have changed since the act was really updated. The Internet was in its infancy. When I first got the chance to speak to the legislation, I made reference to the fact that when I was first elected 30-plus years ago as a Manitoba parliamentarian, the Internet was accessed by dialing up through the telephone, and I think it was on a 256-kilobytes Compaq computer. Actually, I started off with a small Apple computer that I put floppy disks into. Contrast that to what the Internet is today and how advanced technology continues to push us. We, at least on the government benches, recognize that this is change that needs to take place.

Unlike the Conservative Party, we recognize the true, intrinsic value of culture and heritage, and Canada's diversity continues to grow on a daily basis. We need to modernize the legislation. It is there for all Canadians, which is the reason this government is bringing forward this legislation, as well as other important legislation, whether it is Bill C-6 or Bill C-12.

This is solid, progressive legislation that is going to make a tangible difference, and this is why it is so sad at times when we see the unholy alliance of opposition parties trying to frustrate the government in getting through a legislative agenda that we can all be proud of before the summer break, which is something that is done all the time in June when government gives that final push before the summer break.

I would ask members to get behind this legislation and do what I and my Liberal caucus colleagues are doing: support it, and let us move on to more legislation.

Criminal Code

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

Madam Speaker, this is interesting to hear because the personal and emotional testimonies I shared in my speech were all of young people who had transitioned in their teens and then realized in their early twenties that gender transition was not a permanent solution to their gender dysphoria, and they were in their own process of detransition.

Clearly there is a concern here, as has been mentioned. I am wondering if he would expand further on how Bill C-6, as currently written, could very well restrict the freedom of the respectful and exploratory speech of these individuals with valuable lived experience.

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

Madam Speaker, it is a privilege to rise on this issue. I understand that the opinions to counter this bill are not as numerous as the opinions in favour of it, but they are nonetheless no less important.

When I was watching the debate ensue at committee, I was not a part of the committee, but as an interested parliamentarian, I watched all of it. The debate with respect to witnesses and so forth was rather even-handed. I did not count the number of witnesses who raised concerns, versus those who were in favour of it, but there were plenty of professionals and other individual people who brought up real situations which would be technically against the letter of the law according to this, but I think we would all agree are legitimate concerns. I just want to, as best as I can, address those today. Ten minutes is not sufficient for that, but I will do my very best. Of course, time is lacking to do much of what we need to do in this House.

I am in support of a ban on harmful counselling. There are many other jurisdictions, governments and cities around the world that have banned conversion therapy, but in a different way. They have different definitions that are far less broad. Of course, many of them, if not all, outside of a few, are not criminal in nature. I think it is problematic when we have a very broad definition that is also criminal because we want to ban harmful courses of practice, but we do not want to put people in jail who, frankly, do not deserve to be there.

As others have raised before, we want to be entirely certain that what we are targeting is, in fact, the evil that we are looking to target and not be overbroad in that ban. I am a little bit concerned that the assumptions that underpin this bill are faulty. When not all, but some of the assumptions are faulty we can be led astray. I just want to take issue with some of them.

The first is the myth that Bill C-6's definition of conversion therapy accurately identifies treatments that will be harmful and does so in a way that is not overbroad. I think, of course, that there are abusive practices out there and I think that we should aim to ban them, but what Bill C-6 has done here is to basically, in my view, when looking at the definition, outlaw any validated form of talk therapy for Canadians wishing to deal with various issues related to sexual attraction and gender identity. For those who would like to look into the proceedings of the committee, there are many examples of very credible witnesses who have gone through circumstances where they needed counselling to address certain things and their stories are credible. I do not have time to go through them all, but members can look at them.

I also want to say that with respect to transgender identification, particularly in children, there is a conversation going on globally right now that we are missing in this debate on Bill C-6.

In the U.K., the Government Equalities Office for example, is looking into whether the influence of social media and the discussion of gender identity with young people have contributed to the striking increase in referrals. When I get into some of the data here on the striking increase, I think we could all agree that there is something here that needs to be looked at. In the last 10 years, in the United Kingdom, which mirrors data from other countries, we have seen referrals to these gender clinics skyrocket. We have seen them increase by about 1,000% for boys and 4,400% for biological females.

These exponential rises, as I have said, are increasing in other western nations as well. We heard one of the members earlier speak about the United Kingdom High Court ruling with respect to Keira Bell. Keira Bell is one of the young women who was referred to the Tavistock institute, which is the clinic there that deals with gender referrals for gender identity. She was told that, if she went through the process, she would feel better about herself, so she went on to hormone blockers. She had a double mastectomy. She spent several years living, outwardly looking like a man, and she came to regret it. She was in her early twenties. She took the Tavistock institute to court saying she was not in a position where she could consent to this treatment, but was basically told that this would be the answer she needed to her life. It did not make anything better and, in fact, it made a lot of things worse.

The court ruled that people under 16 could likely not consent to puberty-blocking treatments. This bill does the opposite. This bill says that if someone wants to put their child on hormone blockers or if they want to basically put them on the road to surgery, that is totally fine, but to give them the wrong type of counselling could get them in trouble.

Some people would say that there is a clause in the bill that allows people to explore. However, the fact is we heard from very competent professionals in committee that this clause would not be enough, when there is potentially a five-year jail term hanging over people's head.

We heard from Ken Zucker, an internationally renowned expert in gender identity. He was basically working with our clinic here, CAMH, for decades. He is internationally renowned in this field. He has literally written the book on how to treat gender identity in children. He was accused of conversion therapy a few years ago. He was fired from his position, summarily. He had the wherewithal and the resources to take his employer to court. He won a substantial settlement. He cleared his name.

This is the type of thing that we are seeing, before Bill C-6. If this is the sort of witch hunt environment we are seeing before Bill C-6, it is going to increase significantly with Bill C-6.

Other than the U.K., we are seeing other countries in Europe, Sweden and Finland, have gone even a step further. They are moving away from what is called affirmation-only models of care, which I suggest is what Bill C-6 is, this is what other professionals in committee said about this bill. In Sweden and Finland, they are saying there must be a sober second look when a child identifies as transgender. A sober second look is the very thing that I believe Bill would criminalize.

Bill C-6 would criminalize parents who want to discourage their young child from transitioning, who would not be making life-altering decisions. I do not believe it is hateful for a parent to make a decision based on accurate medical facts.

When it comes to transgender identification in children, reliable data indicates the vast majority of kids who identify as another gender would grow out of it, meaning by the time they become an adult, many of up them, up to 80% according to some studies, will identify or accept the body they were born with. I think that given data like that, we really need to give a lot of room here for kids to explore but not to push them on this one-track mode of puberty blockers and eventually surgery. This is what is being criticized by people like Keira Bell.

I read an article in the National Post a year or so ago by Barbara Kay that highlighted the story of a young girl, JB is the acronym used, a child who is currently involved in an application in the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal. This involves a teacher in an Ottawa area school who told this six year-old that girls do not exist. This six-year-old was a happy, loving young girl. I have a seven-year-old, a six-year-old and a five-year-old. The seven- and five-year-olds are girls.

This six-year-old became distraught, withdrawn and depressed. She did not understand what it meant. The parents asked the teacher if she could just cool it on some of these ethereal gender theory comments. The teacher and administration refused to do this, and the parents had to take that girl out of that school. They moved her to a different school, and have taken this particular school board to court.

The girl is once again a happy, well-adjusted young girl. It just goes to show that we have to be careful what we are putting into the minds of our young children. What the U.K. high court case found is that once these kids were put onto these drugs, the hormone blockers, it pretty much puts them on the road to surgery. It is kind of like a one-track street.

We need to be very careful. We need to have a sober second look in this country.

There are in fact many people, even in LGB communities, who are against this bill. I will read an email I received. It said:

Dear Mr. Derek Sloan,

As a Lesbian, I am asking you to investigate the use of gender identity in bill C-6. Approximately 75% of trans identifying youth will grow up to be gay or lesbian, if not affirmed and medically transitioned. This bill, as written, ensures that these gay and lesbian youth will be medically transitioned into straight adults.

She goes on to say:

Please protect vulnerable Gay and Lesbian youth from being told that they are“born in the wrong body” and told they should transition to feel “right” and to “fit in”. Sincerely...

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

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

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

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

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

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to hear my colleague say that we are opposed to requiring conversion therapy without the individual's consent. That is exactly what Bill C-6 is about. I invite my colleague to watch Boy Erased to understand this important nuance. This is reassuring, and I think we will soon be ready to vote.

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

Madam Speaker, as I resume my speech from over a week ago, I want to echo the concerns that many people have brought forward about Bill C-6 and its definition of conversion therapy. Canadians from across the country have expressed concern and asked parliamentarians to fix the definition as they are concerned about private conversations and freely chosen, voluntary counselling being criminalized.

Looking back at the committee that studied this bill, there were concerns expressed by several witnesses along these lines, with members of multiple parties endorsing that position as well. The member for the Bloc at the justice committee, the member for Rivière-du-Nord, expressed concerns about the impacts of the legislation. Along with the testimony from witnesses, many briefs were submitted to the committee. Almost 300 individuals and groups wrote briefs, which means that Canadians were interested in and concerned about this bill. The justice committee did not even take the necessary time to have the briefs translated or reviewed before it voted and adopted this bill. Why did the committee members not take the time to read over these briefs? Many Canadians are wondering.

Fixing the definition is what Canadians are asking for. The Liberal government has failed Canadians by coming up with a definition that does not have unanimous support in this place. Conservatives are opposed to conversion therapy and are looking forward to a bill that would ban conversion therapy and not conversations.

The House resumed from June 7 consideration of the motion that Bill C-6, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (conversion therapy), be read the third time and passed.

Conversion Therapy

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

Madam Speaker, the final petition I will present today addresses Bill C-6. As I have always said, I support banning conversion therapy as do these petitioners. The petitioners recognize, however, that the poor and imprecise definition of conversion therapy in Bill C-6 will cause this bill to ban more than just conversion therapy, including counsel from religious leaders on sexuality, and the rights of parents to protect and guide their children. It is important we protect parental rights as well as the rights of Canadians to choose the type of support that is right for them.

Ethics

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

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals did not add Bill C‑6 to the agenda for four months, and they spent 183 hours filibustering in committee. The Leader of the Government is the one who is unable to manage the House. That is the reality.

The member for Malpeque told the Globe and Mail that the Liberal Party gathers partisan information from constituency offices. He said that MPS have to be careful in how they handle the system, to avoid misusing the information for partisan gain.

To sum up, the Prime Minister has a good friend who travelled with him to the Aga Khan's island and a close friend who runs the partisan Liberalist with money paid out of the public budgets of 149 MPs. He is asking Canadians to believe that no rules were broken. Who ordered the payments?

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, can my colleague tell me when the Conservatives will stop blocking the budget? Can he tell me when they will stop blocking Bill C‑10 so we can get the web giants to start contributing? When will they stop blocking Bill C‑12 so that we can continue working for the future of our children and grandchildren? When will they stop blocking Bill C‑6, on a process that harms our youth and the LGBTQ+ community?

When will they stop blocking these progressive bills, and when will the Bloc Québécois and the NDP stop supporting the Conservatives' antics and start helping us and all Canadians?

Criminal Code

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, shame on the member for the interruption.

I have debated this issue. I have supported this issue's advancement, and I suspect that it will get through second reading at some point, as other private members' bills will. If there is keen interest such as I have heard today on the floor of the House from all members, I would suggest that they raise the issue with their respective House leadership teams. Maybe there is a way in which it can be accommodated.

Is this select group now going to prioritize all the other areas and bills that are before us and say these ones too should be rushed through the House of Commons without debate, let alone some debate? I could list Bill C-6 on conversion therapy. I could talk about Bill C-30, which is going to help millions of Canadians, many of whom are in desperate situations. Then there is Bill C-12, on net zero and the environment, and Bill C-10. That does not even go into the many private members' bills from many of our colleagues who are very interested in advancing their ideas, resolutions and bills.

That does not take away from the importance of the debate on this bill. I suspect that when it comes to a vote, every member will likely vote for it as they did previously. The ones who are trying to score political cheap shots today are the opposition parties. In the days going into summer, this is brought to the table. If the people who are pushing for this legislation really wanted to do a service for the audience, there is a better way of doing it. I suspect some of them know that, but they have chosen to do this in their partisanship, while saying the Liberal government is preventing it.

Out of respect for some of the individuals I have referenced, I will work within my caucus, as I know my colleague from Toronto who spoke prior to me will. We understand what the bill and the legislation will do, but we also understand that after today there are three days left of this session before we break for the summer. There are still opportunities to try to shame one political entity into unanimous consent for personal or political views, or to try to make others look bad. I believe that the manner in which this issue is being dealt with today is just wrong.

I have been on House leadership teams for 30 years. It would be nice to see this bill passed at all stages. If that is possible, then I would really recommend that members watching or participating use that same passion in talking to their House leaderships. There might even be some other members who have other ideas for legislation that may be important to them and to Canadians, and that could allow us to set a good example around the world.

Canada taking action can have a positive outcome for other nations. I recognize that, but I also recognize that at the end of the day, in order for us to succeed we have to have a process. If we are respectful of the process and work in collaboration as parties, we could probably achieve a lot more, as we did for the private member's bill the first and second go-round.

I would invite members who are following the debate to participate in a discussion afterwards with regard to how I feel, using my expertise, about what could be done with regard to this legislation.

I suggest this as an open gesture of goodwill, because I, like the former Liberal speaker, support the legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, my question to the member is related to the request he has asked of the House. Would he agree that what he was attempting to do is best done through House leadership teams, where they can try to see if it is possible to do what he has requested?

For example, would the member support the quick passage of Bill C-30, which is the budget bill, given the implications for the pandemic and supports for Canadians? Would he support such a measure for Bill C-30, Bill C-6, Bill C-10 and Bill C-12?

Budget Implementation Act, 2021, No. 1

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge Park, ON]

Madam Speaker, this is important legislation, as is Bill C-12, Bill C-10 and Bill C-6. They contain important value-based measures for Canadians that we need to pass before we rise for the summer.

Business of the House

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague and also thank and congratulate André Gagnon for his invaluable help and his kindness. I wish him a happy retirement.

To answer my esteemed colleague's question, this afternoon we will finish the debate on the opposition motion. This evening we will debate and vote on the estimates.

Tomorrow we will resume debate at report stage of the same bill, Bill C‑30, budget implementation act, 2021, no. 1.

Next week, priority will be given once again to Bill C‑30 at third reading stage because it is absolutely essential. We want to send this bill to the Senate as soon as possible of course.

Our other priorities will be Bill C‑12 on net-zero emissions, Bill C‑10 on broadcasting and Bill C‑6 on conversion therapy.

In closing, since this is my last Thursday statement before the House rises for the summer, I would like to thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the incredible and at times difficult work that you did all year to guide us in these hybrid sittings of the House, which added an extra challenge. I also want to thank the clerks, the interpreters, the support staff, the pages and all the parliamentary staff without whom we would absolutely not be able to do our job every day.

Many thanks to all of you.

Conversion Therapy

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

Mr. Speaker, the third petition I am presenting deals with Bill C-6, the government's conversion therapy bill.

The petitioners are very supportive of efforts to ban conversion therapy. However, they are concerned about the definition as written in the bill, believing that it is inaccurate and that it would apply to private conversations in which sexual behaviour is discussed but that have nothing to do with conversion therapy as it has been historically defined.

The petitioners call on the government to ban coercive, degrading practices that are designed to change a person's sexual orientation or gender identity; to ensure there are no laws discriminating against Canadians or limiting their ability to access services on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity; and to fix the definition in Bill C-6.

[Chris Lewis, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present a petition calling on the House to address concerns related to the broad definition applied to conversion therapy in Bill C-6.

The petitioners' concerns relate not to the intent of Bill C-6, which they strongly support, but rather to the chilling effect the broad definition contained in Bill C-6 may have on counsel from parents and teachers, as well as professionals and religious counselling that is voluntary and with full consent.

The petition contains four recommendations to the House with respect to clarifying the definition.

Government Business No. 10—Broadcasting Act

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, when I was a kid, my grandfather used to say there was something screwy going on when a situation did not seem quite right. Well, there is something screwy going on today, because I am hearing the Conservatives blather on about freedom of expression.

Where is that freedom of expression when it is time to protect a woman's right to make choices about her own body? Where is that freedom of expression when we are talking about Bill C‑6 and people with a different sexual orientation?

The Conservatives seem to have a flexible interpretation of freedom of expression. I am not sure if my colleague would agree with that.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, looking at what the Conservatives are doing with regard to Bill C-6, the conversion therapy legislation, we see a lot of similarities. They take an issue and try to make that issue justify their pathetic behaviour inside the House and in committee, in terms of not allowing progressive parties in the House to see these important pieces of legislation advance. To them I say, “Shame.”

At the end of the day, the Conservatives have determined that they just do not want the legislation to pass, so they will come up with excuses to justify their behaviour, and that is unfortunate.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I have to be very sympathetic to our translators. They do a phenomenal job, ensuring all members can understand what is being said. I apologize for any popping noise that I might have caused.

In regard to the legislation, and as I was listening to the debate this evening, I was reflecting on a couple of points. One was the Conservatives' opposition to the legislation and the tactics they used to try to frustrate the House, and ultimately mislead Canadians on the second reading debate of the legislation. I can recall at least a good portion of that debate back then.

I realize I somewhat date myself as a parliamentarian now for about 30 years, both at the provincial and national level, but a lot of things have changed. When I was first elected, I had a Compaq computer. I think it was a 256 kB, and it had a five-and-a-half inch disk on which to back things up. To get on to the Internet in downtown Winnipeg, at the Manitoba legislature where my office was as an MLA, I would have phone into the Internet. I would get the long dial tone, a ding-ding sound and then I would be on it. It sure was slow as was the computer.

Things have changed. When I compare that to where we are at today, a couple of things that come to mind. We have underestimated for decades the impact the Internet has on society in many different ways. With regard to the legislation, for the first time we are taking steps forward to address that huge gap, those decades of doing nothing.

We have a Prime Minister who understands that technology has changed and he has mandated the Minister of Canadian Heritage to bring forward this legislation. Members within the Liberal caucus have been waiting very patiently for the legislation. We were glad to see it not only introduced, but get to second reading and then ultimately pass out of second reading. It has been long overdue.

Today, we have Wi-Fi. We can forget the telephone-dial-in type of Internet in downtown Winnipeg. We cannot even draw comparisons to the speed. I am learning this thing about music with the iPad and iPhone. It is called Apple Music, and I have acquired some music from that service. It has millions of songs. I suspect that if I were to start to listen to one song after another, I would be long gone before all the songs were played. In other words, any song one could possibly imagine can likely be found in its library. It is truly amazing what we can get on the Internet.

There are shows from the past like The Andy Griffith Show, or Three's Company orWKRP in Cincinnati. These are all shows from the past, and were fairly dominate outside of Canada. I remember The Beachcombers from British Columbia. There were many different kids' programs. I think of programs with great Canadian content. At one time, I suspect the rules sufficed, that they protected the industry, the consumers, our arts and culture and ensured we had a sense of Canadian identity.

As I have pointed out, over the decades, things have really changed. We can be very proud of some of the programs we have seen over the last number of years in particular.

I did not hear of Schitt's Creek until it won all those wonderful awards. A number of my caucus colleagues talked about the program, so I binge watched it. One gets a sense of pride that this is a first-class Canadian production. There is a very strong Canadians perspective to it.

When I think of programs of a Canadian nature, I think of Corner Gas from Saskatchewan and some of the personalities in that show. I think of some of the music industry stars such as Celine Dion and Anne Murray, just to mention a couple with whom I am familiar, as I am not really the most musically inclined.

However, Canada is rich in our heritage and in the arts, and we need to do what we can to protect that into the future. In good part, Bill C-10 is all about that. It is the part that interests me. I am very much concerned about Canadian content going forward and the opportunities for future songwriters, scriptwriters, musicians, actors, performers and the people who manage the stages. A healthy, vibrant industry exists and it needs to be supported. One of the ways we can support that industry and protect, in good part, our Canadian identity going forward is to support Bill C-10.

I find it amazing that the Conservatives have taken a hardened approach to it. I asked a question earlier about freedom of speech. I asked the member to be very specific, to provide me with a quote. A former member mentioned a couple of clauses, which I will have to take a look at, but the member I asked the question of did not even attempt to answer the question. I do not think she had any idea what it specifically was.

The Conservatives are very good at spinning things. I have been getting emails, as I am sure others have, about concerns with freedom of speech. It was even brought up at one of my virtual town hall meetings. A lot of Conservative spin out there is amplified for a wide variety of reasons. The skeptic side of me might say it has something to do with the Conservatives fundraising machine. Another reason might be that they are frustrated with other issues related to the pandemic, such as the government's performance in its work with other levels of government and Canadians and how reasonably well things have gone on that front, so they are trying to find something to complain about.

Based on today and what I heard coming out of committee, the Conservatives have definitely found something, and that is Bill C-10 and freedom of speech. I still do not understand the connection.

I do not remember the date, but the Prime Minister said:

Mr. Speaker, just as Canada's analysis confirms that Bill C-10 remains consistent with the charter's guarantee of freedom of expression, Bill C-10 aims to level the playing field between creators and web giants.

It requires big, powerful foreign streamers to provide information on their revenues in Canada, to financially contribute to Canadian stories and music, and to make it easier for individuals to discover our culture.

The bill explicitly says that obligations apply to web giants only: not to Canadian users. Web giants have gone unregulated for far too long. Our government has chosen action over reaction.

I appreciate that there have been some amendments, changes and modifications, but whether it is the Prime Minister or the Minister of Heritage, they have done a fantastic job representing what the legislation would do, considering the degree of support it is getting. I believe the National Assembly of Québec, listening to the minister, unanimously said that Bill C-10 was good legislation and it should be passed.

It surprises me that when Bill C-10 was in committee, the Conservative Party was determined to prevent it from moving out of committee. I genuinely believe that if it were up to the Conservative Party, Bill C-10 would never have left committee.

Some members say that they feel ripped-off because they did not get the chance talk to the amendments, because the government put time allocation on the amount of time the committee had for the bill. I would like to remind my Conservative friends that, as a minority government, for us to successfully put in any form of time allocation, we require at least one other opposition party to support that initiative. We cannot ram it through committee stage.

It seems to me that the Conservatives feel their rights have been walked on if the government brings in a motion for time allocation and gets passed. However, for the government to have the time allocation motion passed, it has to have an opposition party onside, and in this situation the Bloc Québécois provided the government the numbers necessary to ensure that Bill C-10 would get out of committee. If it were not for the desire to move this legislation forward and get the support to do so, it likely still would be in committee today.

Many members, including myself, would have thought the New Democrats would have supported that move. Those members are not what I would classify as naive. They understood what was taking place in committee. They seemed to understand what the Conservative Party was attempting to do with Bill C-10. However, we were able to move the bill out of the committee stage and get it to report stage and then third reading so we can get it passed. As I pointed out at the very beginning, this is critical legislation.

I have been in opposition in many governments for 20-plus years, and I have had the good fortune of being a part of a majority government. Typically, when we get to the month of June, hours are extended and we look at passing important legislation before the summer.

It is no different this time. We attempted to bring in extended hours and we were successful, but not because of the Conservatives. That is the reason why we are debating this legislation right now. We were able to get support, not from the Conservatives but from other opposition members, so that we could actually sit longer to debate the legislation we are debating right now.

Ironically, Conservative Party members would argue that they do not want extended hours. They did that. Let us remember that last Thursday the Conservatives tried to adjourn the House. They did not even want us to sit on Thursday. It is because the Conservative Party has no interest at all in seeing any legislation pass at this point. Conservative members will do what they can to filibuster and prevent the government from passing legislation. On the other hand, they will be critical of the government because they say we are trying to limit the amount of time in which they can speak to legislation. However, they were denying the opportunity to speak by having extended hours and by actually sitting as opposed to trying to adjourn debate for the day.

Just as the Conservative opposition continues to be a destructive force on the floor of the House of Commons, as it attempts to frustrate the government in trying to pass legislation such as our budget, the Liberal government will continue to be focused on Canadians and on ensuring, as much as possible, that we have legislation like our budget, Bill C-10, Bill C-6 and other progressive pieces of legislation that other progressive parties will see the merit of passing. This is as opposed to buying into what the Conservatives want, which is to prevent at all costs any legislation from passing in the House of Commons.

This legislation is good legislation. It is good for Canadians. It is good for the industry. I highly recommend that all members of the House support its passage.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am always amazed by the intransigence of my Conservative colleagues, and I would like to share a thought that my colleague might want to reflect on.

I have a feeling that, much like with Bill C-6, it is ideology that drives the Conservatives to be so vocal in their opposition to all these bills. I get the impression that they want to strengthen their base, which has a negative view of both the artists and the objectives of another bill like C-6.

Can my colleague comment on that?

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, I will now get back to the premise of my speech, the 2019 campaign in which every Bloc Québécois candidate made a serious promise to voters, a commitment made solemnly and with conviction: Whenever we are in the House, we will make decisions, take a position and support bills and motions that defend Quebeckers’ interests and values.

Even today, it is still the question we ask ourselves when it comes time to choose which direction to take, either here or in committee. A time allocation motion, closure, a gag order, whatever we may call it, there really is no good word for it and we find it chilling, because freedom of speech, parliamentary privilege, is fundamental. It is something we deeply respect and will defend at all costs, like we did with this morning's motion, which just squeaked by.

The Bloc Québécois has fervently defended this idea since its inception, 30 years ago tomorrow. I think that we supported a time allocation motion more often in the past two weeks than in all the 30 years of my party’s existence.

Sometimes, situations force us to step on people’s toes to defend our values, and sometimes that is justifiable.

The parliamentary toolkit contains another tool that is just as questionable, in my opinion, and many of my colleagues probably agree with me. It is the filibustering of debates, either here in the House or in committee. The filibuster consists in droning on endlessly, taking up debate time to prevent a vote or to prevent something that is against our convictions from happening. At that point, the other move that is just as questionable, time allocation, becomes equally justifiable.

In recent months, we have supported time allocation for Bill C‑6 and for medical assistance in dying, an extremely sensitive issue on which Quebec has reached a consensus. People were waiting for the bill. They were waiting for a decision from the House of Commons. They were enduring unbearable suffering and they wanted the freedom to decide when they could end it.

At that point, we asked ourselves the same question. We asked ourselves whether we were going to accept closure if it reflected the will, the values and the interests of Quebeckers. Since it was a simple question, and the answer was yes, we believed we were duty bound to do whatever was necessary to have these bills and motions adopted.

Bill C‑30 is also important for businesses. It is important for the economic recovery, since it will allow entrepreneurs in our regions to get back on their feet after the pandemic. Obviously, we would have preferred that the democratic process take its normal course but, when it is clear that someone is trying to delay the process by every means possible for reasons that are often purely ideological, in order to please their base or collect funds by plucking at the heartstrings of certain groups of Canadians, we believe that it is our duty to counter these manoeuvres using another parliamentary tool. We believe that, in those circumstances, it is reasonable.

That was the case with Bill C‑10. How did we get here? My colleague from Richmond—Arthabaska talked about that earlier. It is true that, at first, when the bill was tabled, we found a lot of holes in it. There were more holes in it than there are in Swiss cheese, like in a brand new paint by numbers. It took six years' preparation to come up with a bill and there was still an enormous amount of work to do.

I do not want to lay blame on anyone, but I think that, from the moment the bill was introduces, the opposition parties were unanimous in thinking that there were too many things missing for it to be acceptable. The industry was happy because a bill was finally being introduced to amend the Broadcasting Act, which had already been obsolete for several years and which was enacted in 1991, at a time when we were recording songs broadcast over the radio on four-track cassettes.

Since we were considerably behind, it was not surprising that the industry applauded the tabling of a bill to review the Broadcasting Act. It should have been reviewed 20 years ago, it should have been reviewed 10 years ago; it should be reviewed on a regular basis.

We soon realized how much work there was to be done. In a way, when a member of the House decides to vote in favour of a bill so that it can be studied in committee, that member is making a commitment to say that certain elements of the bill are not very good and need to be worked on. That work falls to us. It is unfortunate, but we have to do it. We have to improve Bill C‑10 because the cultural industry, our media and the field of broadcasting in Canada have drastically changed. Today's broadcasting industry is nothing like what it was in 1991, when the last version of the Broadcasting Act was passed. I was working in radio at the time. When I walk into a radio studio these days, in 2021, I am completely lost and I have to be shown around because I do not know what anything is. Everything is different today, except for the mike, which has not changed much.

When we agree to work on a bill in committee, we are committing to making improvements. That is how we ended up with more than 100 amendments. At first, there were about 120 amendments proposed by the NDP, the Green Party, the Conservatives, the Liberals and the Bloc Québécois.

Before proposing these amendments, we consulted people. We heard from people who were interested in sharing their concerns with us. A lot of people wanted to talk about the Broadcasting Act, because it affected a huge number of stakeholders, including community radio and television stations, broadcasters, cable companies, artists and online companies. A lot of people wanted to share their concerns and remind us to include certain things in the bill.

Independent broadcasters also depend on online companies, as well as conventional broadcasters, such as the traditional cable companies, to broadcast their content. In short, there were a lot of witnesses to listen to. We came to realize that this would be a monumental task. There is a reason there were 120 amendments: because there was a lot of work to do. We did it.

I met with representatives of the cultural industry. We exchanged many messages, emails and calls and held many meetings. These people represent more than 200,000 artists, creators, artisans, authors and other people who earn a living from the cultural industry, which has significant spinoffs. Canada's cultural industry generates billions of dollars in economic spinoffs. That is no trivial matter, and we cannot let an industry like that down. We love culture, the arts, our artists and our distinct culture, but we also like money. This is a profitable industry that does not cost us a fortune. Far from being a millstone dragging us down, we benefit from it. It sets us apart and identifies us. There were 120 amendments, but they were serious amendments. They were important. We worked hard, but then came the events of late April.

Did we do things the best way possible? In hindsight, that is a reasonable question. Was it right to eliminate clause 4.1? Maybe not. Is the result what the Conservatives say it is? It is not.

Bill C‑10 contains provisions that clearly protect social media users. As important as it was to protect social media users, it was also important to regulate social media platforms, which play a role in broadcasting and are involved in broadcasting. Social media has an impact on the broadcasting system. YouTube is the largest online music broadcaster in Canada.

We would have had to tell Apple Music that it was going to be regulated, but that YouTube was not because it also has a social media service. That makes no sense. Apple Music would have been right to tell us off, saying that we had done a horrible job and that we needed to go back to the drawing board.

We had to be able to regulate social media for their broadcasting activities, while protecting their users. That is what is clearly stated in the bill, and that is what will come out of the revised Broadcasting Act in the end.

There was never any question of limiting Quebeckers' and Canadians' freedom of speech. Freedom of speech is a value that Canadians of all stripes hold dear. Let us not compete to see who loves freedom of speech the most. It is fundamental for us, for Quebeckers and for Canadians. Of that there is no doubt.

What party in the House would have blindly voted for a bill that would actually limit freedom of expression? It does not make sense. It is merely a question of ideology. It is merely an attempt to fan the flames, to offend sensibilities. Perhaps it will pay off, I do not know.

When the problem arose in committee and the question was raised, the Conservatives said that we absolutely had to hear from the Minister of Canadian Heritage and the Minister of Justice. These ministers had to issue a charter statement. They had to see what was going on. We needed a guarantee from the minister that the bill complied with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and if we were going to do that, we should hear from experts. The Conservatives wanted to invite experts back.

We were wasting time on a bill when we already did not have much time to spare. We wondered what we should with that. Having reflected on it, I am convinced that what is in the bill will protect freedom of expression and social media users, in other words individuals, people. We decided that if there was any uncertainty, we needed to get to the bottom of it, and we had a duty to do so. It was early May, and we were running out of time, but no matter, we had to get it done, and that is what we did. We heard from the experts that the Conservatives wanted us to invite. We heard from law professors and people who believe that this bill goes against this provision of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and who claim it jeopardizes freedom of expression. I want to listen to all sides before I form an opinion.

However, we also heard from experts such as Pierre Trudel, a professor of law who is renowned across the country. He, too, is a leading authority, and he had a completely different opinion. We heard from Ms. Yale, the chair of the major study that resulted in the Yale report almost a year and a half ago. She also testified and shared her views. Ms. Yale also did not think there was a threat.

There is nothing wrong with expressing doubts and saying that some experts have a certain view. However, at some point, we must respect the democratic process. We listened to everyone and showed good will and good faith. Other experts expressed different views before the committee. Through a vote, the committee decided that we would finally move forward and that there was no threat. The democratic process can come down on either side and we must respect it. Our Conservative colleagues decided to continue filibustering the committee by giving interminable speeches, and we saw things get out of hand.

I was really disappointed by the comments made by the member for Lethbridge in the Lethbridge Herald. She described Quebec artists as being a niche group who are stuck in the 1990s and unable to adapt, so they have to make a living off government grants. I spent 30 years working in the media, in radio and in television, surrounded by artists, being part of their community. If I had had more hair to begin with, I think whatever is left would have fallen out. That took my breath away. I cannot believe that we did not hear a heartfelt apology in the House, either from the leader of the official opposition or from the member herself. I found her comments, which have been denounced by arts organizations, beyond sad and terribly unfortunate.

When we started studying Bill C‑10, I decided that I would do exactly what the Bloc Québécois had promised to do during the 2019 election campaign in Quebec. My colleague from Jonquière once told me that if I really wanted to connect with and be attuned to my constituents' realities, I should lace up my shoes, hit the streets and listen to what my constituents want me to support. That is exactly what I did.

I have been in contact with the cultural sector from the beginning, especially in Quebec, but also, by extension, Canada, since the associations that represent the artists and the industry in Quebec also represent the industry across Canada.

We also listened to francophone communities outside Quebec, which were also needing the protections offered by this bill. We listened to them, we moved forward and we proposed amendments to protect francophone and Quebec culture, and most of these amendments were accepted.

We worked hard to improve this bill. As we were approaching the end of the road, or in this case, the end of the session, and we had made some major gains for the cultural sector, we knew that it was not the time to give up and call it a day because there would not be enough time.

This industry suffered during the pandemic. It has been waiting for a bill, a review of the Broadcasting Act, for far too long. Remember what things were like in 1991. We did not have high-speed Internet. We could not always connect. We had to listen to a sound like a fax machine for about seven minutes. When we managed to connect, we could not just download a photo. If we wanted to do that, we had to start the download the night before in order to see the photo in the morning. We were far from streaming music, downloading videos and watching shows online like we do today. The Broadcasting Act has been completely out of touch with reality for a long time.

As I was saying, we do not have much time left to finish working on this bill, which is so important for the cultural industry, the cultural community, broadcasters, independent broadcasters and creators, as well as for the unique identity that we have here with our culture. Whether we are talking about Quebec or English Canada, we are not the same as the United States and there are marked differences between our culture and American culture.

What should we do? Are we going to allow the web giants to rake in billions of dollars when we are not asking them for much? Are we going to say that it does not matter if they do not produce our shows, that it is a free market and that we should let them set up shop here with their billions of dollars and their means of production and let them do what they want? Come on. That is completely ludicrous.

The Yale report mentioned this last year, and it is just as relevant today: We must act quickly. When action is urgently needed, we must do what it takes to get results and achieve our goal.

The Bloc Québécois made an unusual but necessary decision in supporting time allocation for Bill C‑10 in committee. It is a rare measure and I hope we will not have to take it again, but it was necessary. We made a commitment to work for Quebec, the cultural community and our media. We are also committed to keeping our culture alive. In Quebec, we have been in the habit of fighting for our culture for quite some time. That is perhaps the difference: We have been rolling up our sleeves for a longer time now. We will not give up the fight.

Contrary to what our Conservative colleagues think, this bill is essential and it is urgent. We owe it to our cultural community, as well as to Quebec and Canadian media.

Conversion Therapy

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

Madam Speaker, the next petition is on Bill C-6. The petitioners call on the government to move forward with efforts to ban conversion therapy. They also want the government to fix the definition in the bill. They are concerned about how a poorly drafted definition could result in restrictions on private conversations in which people are not engaged in any kind of quasi-therapeutic practice, but are simply having conversations and expressing personal views. They want the House to protect freedom of speech, clarify the definition in the bill and then move forward with a ban on conversion therapy.

Budget Implementation Act, 2021, No. 1

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

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to address this issue this afternoon. There are a couple of aspects that I would like to provide some comment on, but first and foremost is the idea of Bill C-30, now at report stage, and how important passing it is to all Canadians.

The other day, I talked about a progressive agenda. The Government of Canada has put forward a very strong, healthy, progressive agenda that includes today's bill, Bill C-12, Bill C-6, Bill C-10, Bill C-22 and Bill C-21. Of course, I often make reference to Bill C-19 as well. All of these pieces of legislation are important to the government, but I would argue that the most important one is the bill we are debating today, Bill C-30.

The budget is of critical importance for a wide variety of reasons. I can talk about the benefits that seniors would be receiving as a direct result of this budget bill, in particular those who are 75 and over, with the significant fulfillment of our campaign promise of a 10% increase to OAS for seniors aged 75 and above, and a one-time payment coming up in the month of August for that group. During the pandemic, we have been there for seniors, in particular those 65 and over, with one-time payments closer to the beginning of the pandemic, and even an extra amount for those who were on the guaranteed income supplement. That is not to mention the many different organizations that the government supported, whether directly or indirectly, to support our seniors, in particular non-profit organizations.

We have done a multitude of things, many of which are very tangible. The Minister of Finance made reference to the extension of some of the programs, for example, which we brought in so we could continue to be there for businesses and real people. This was so important. At the beginning of the process, the Prime Minister made it very clear that this government, the Liberal Party and the Liberal members of the House of Commons were 100% committed to working seven days a week, 24 hours a day to ensure that the interests of Canadians in combatting and fighting the pandemic were going to be priority number one.

As to that priority, we saw the establishment of a large number of new programs that ensured money was being put directly into the pockets of Canadians. One was the CERB, which benefited somewhere around nine million Canadians. Virtually out of nowhere this program came into being, in good part thanks to our civil servants, who have done a tremendous job in putting in place and administering the many different programs.

We have seen programs to support our businesses in particular, whether it is the Canada emergency wage subsidy program, the emergency rent subsidy program, the emergency business account or the regional relief and recovery fund. We recognized what Canada needed. The Government of Canada worked with Canadians and with, in particular, provinces, non-profits, territories, indigenous leaders and many others in order to make sure that Canadians were going to be protected as much as possible. All of this was done with the goal of being able to get us, as a nation, out of the situation we are currently in.

We have put ourselves in a position where Canada will be able to recover, and recover well. It is interesting to hear the Conservative Party asking about the debt. Many of the things I just finished talking about are the reasons why we have the debt. The Conservatives in many ways are saying we should be spending more money, while the Conservative right is saying we have spent too much money or is asking about the debt. Some Conservatives are talking about the creation of jobs. The most recent Conservative commitment was that they would create one million jobs.

Between 2015, when the Liberals were first elected, and the election of 2019, we created over a million jobs. We understand how important jobs are. Jobs are one of the reasons it was important for us to commit to businesses of all sizes, and small businesses in particular, to get through this difficult time. We knew that by saving companies from going bankrupt and by keeping Canadians employed we would be in a much better position once we got ahead of the pandemic.

I am actually quite pleased today. I started off by looking at the national news. A CBC story said that when it comes to first doses Canada is now ahead of Israel, according to a graph that was posted. When we think of populations of a million or more, Canada is doing exceptionally well. We are ahead of all other nations in dealing with the first dose.

I am now qualified to get my second dose. Earlier today I had the opportunity to book an appointment for a second dose on July 7. Canadians are responding so well to the need for vaccination. We understand why it is so important that we all get vaccinated. We need to continue to encourage people to get those shots.

It goes without saying that we need to recognize many very special people who have been there for Canadians. The ones who come to mind immediately are the health care workers here in the province of Manitoba. They are a special group of people that not long ago, in a virtual meeting, the Prime Minister expressed gratitude for in a very strong and significant way.

Our health care workers, whether the nurses, doctors or lab technicians, and people in all areas of health care, including those providing and sanitizing facilities as well as a whole litany of people, have ensured that we have been there from a health perspective.

We can look at workers involved with essential items such as groceries. Whether it was long haul truck drivers, people stacking groceries or collecting money for groceries, or taxi drivers who took people where they needed to go, whether to the hospital or the grocery store, they were there. Public institutions were there. I think of Winnipeg Transit bus drivers who opened their doors not knowing who was walking onto their buses. They were all there.

This legislation we are debating today is a continuation of getting Canada in a better, healthier position to deal with the coronavirus. We needed to bring in time allocation because of the destructive behaviour of the official opposition. We wanted to work and the Conservatives wanted to take time off. There was an excellent indication of that last Thursday, which was the biggest day in terms of debate for government. The Conservatives attempted to end the session only moments after the day got under way. It is not right that the Conservatives are playing games. We need to pass this legislation. I would ask all members to vote for it.

Bill C-6―Notice of time allocation motion

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

Mr. Speaker, an agreement could not be reached under the provisions of Standing Orders 78(1) or 78(2) with respect to the third reading stage of Bill C-6, an act to amend the Criminal Code (conversion therapy).

Under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3), I give notice that a minister of the Crown will propose at the next sitting a motion to allot a specific number of days or hours for the consideration and disposal of proceedings at the said stage.

A majority of the members want to see this legislation through. It is only the Conservatives who do not, so we do not need to act on this notice if the Conservatives can respect the majority of members and—

Conversion Therapy

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

Mr. Speaker, I am tabling four petitions in the House today. The first petition is with respect to Bill C-6.

The petitioners very much want what they are saying to be heard in this petition. They support efforts to ban conversion therapy. They want to see conversion therapy banned, and they are concerned about the definition as it is written. In particular, they are concerned that the definition does not ban conversion therapy, but bans many other things that are not actually conversion therapy.

The petitioners want to see the government support efforts to fix the definition, and then move forward with further actions to indeed ban conversion therapy.

Motions in amendment

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

Madam Speaker, this is very important. The hon. member has drawn attention to the fact that certain speakers may not be able to advocate on behalf of their constituents whatever their position on the bill may be in Parliament, but there is another effect that is really important to draw attention to. In the limited time window we have before the House is set to rise for the summer, there is other urgent work that we must address.

I point to Bill C-6, which would ban conversion therapy. The House needs to address this because it is urgent that people are not subjected to conversion therapy. I point to Bill C-12, which would provide climate accountability. These measures will not get addressed if the Conservative Party continues to launch procedural tricks to avoid debate on what matters to Canadians. They should put their country ahead of the interests of their party.

Extension of Sitting Hours in June

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

Madam Speaker, those were excellent points raised by my friend for South Okanagan—West Kootenay. It is a very beautiful riding, for those members who have not had the opportunity to visit that part of British Columbia.

I talked in my speech about Bill C-12 and Bill C-6. Those are obvious areas where the government could find co-operation from our party in moving them forward. Also, another bill, Bill C-22, is important to reform our justice system by reforming the Criminal Code and would put some important reforms on the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. I just wish, in hindsight, that the Liberals had focused laser-like attention on two, three or four government bills at the most, and tried to shepherd those through. Instead, I made mention of the scatter-gun approach. It was all over the place, with no rhyme or reason, and suddenly we are in late May and June, and the government is looking at the calendar and panicking. That is where we are today.

We are scheduled to return on September 20. There should not be a reason for panic, but we know the Liberals are trying to engineer an election this summer.

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

Mr. Speaker, before I get directly involved in the debate on Government Business Motion No. 8, I just want to take a minute to offer my sincere and personal congratulations to three first nations on the southwest coast of Vancouver Island for having come together to directly take ownership of their traditional territories when it comes to managing the resources. This has been a long journey in my riding, and there have certainly been some high emotions present on the subject of old-growth forestry. It is nice to see the first nations come together and really take ownership of this issue. I just want to offer my congratulations to them for taking this important step on this journey.

I will now turn my attention to the business at hand. As my colleagues in the House know, we are here today debating Government Business Motion No. 8. This motion comes before us under the authority granted under Standing Order 27(1).

The main government motion aims to make sure that the House can extend its sitting hours. The government side would like to see us continue to sit on Mondays and Wednesdays until midnight and have the Friday sitting extended until 4:30 in the afternoon. I believe my Conservative colleagues want to see the motion changed so that on Mondays, Tuesdays and Wednesdays we would only sit until 8:30 p.m.

I cannot continue to speak about Government Business Motion No. 8 without talking a little about the circumstances in which we find ourselves, which gives me sympathy for Shakespeare’s character Mercutio in Romeo and Juliet when he cried, “A plague o' both your houses!” However, in this case, I think we can substitute the Capulets and the Montagues for the Conservatives and the Liberals. Both of these parties are demonstrating no room for co-operation and no finding of a middle ground in order to move forward important pieces of legislation, which I think many Canadians would like to see us pass.

I will start with my Conservative friends, and because of what happened yesterday and what has already happened this morning in the House, we are not actually going to see a vote on the motion before us until Monday, and so we have lost a lot of very valuable time.

Yesterday, the Conservatives were successful at prolonging the Routine Proceedings of the House by forcing a vote to move to Orders of the Day, which, of course, we as a House rejected, and that then finally allowed the government to actually introduce the motion that is before us. However, this morning, they moved a motion to adjourn the House, then there was a debate on a random committee report, which was then followed by an extended debate on a question of privilege. These parliamentary shenanigans, members can see, are very naked attempts to try to delay, and quite successfully, a vote on the motion before us.

I have been a member of the House since 2015, and experienced members should know that this is a time of year when we usually find the time to come together and usually agree in some straightforward fashion that the House does need some extended sitting hours so that we, as members of Parliament, have the time to represent our constituents and to give voice to important polices and pieces of legislation that concern them. I will never not be in favour of allowing my colleagues to have extra time to do work, which is why I took strong umbrage against the motion to adjourn the House today. It is a Thursday, and unlike a Friday, it is a full sitting day. I think our voters would be shocked to see one party wanting to so blatantly quit the business of the House while there is so much important work to do.

I will leave aside the Conservatives and now turn my eye to the Liberals, because I think it is the height of irony and hypocrisy for the Liberals to stand before us and talk about the dysfunction of the House. When we look at what has been happening in several of the most prominent committees, the Liberals have actively filibustered to prevent those committees from arriving at a point where members can collectively make a decision on a motion that is before them.

I am very lucky to sit on the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food. I invite my colleagues to substitute on that committee to see what a well-run committee of the House is able to do. We have differing opinion on the agriculture committee, but the one thing that unites us all is the fact that every single one of our parties represents ridings with farmers and has strong agricultural basis. We usually find a way to work together by consensus to arrive at decisions in a respectful way. It does not mean to say that we do not have our debates and our points of disagreement, but it is probably the most ideal demonstration of how committees can work.

The actions of the Liberals at various committee by filibustering are adding to the situation in which we find ourselves. I would have preferred for us to have arrived at a place where we could get a vote on Government Business No. 8, but unfortunately we will have to delay that until Monday because of the special orders we are operating under in this current hybrid system.

Standing Order 27, I believe, dates back to 1982, but even predating that year, it does reflect a long-standing practice that has existed since Confederation for Parliament, and I am sure in the provincial legislatures, to seek the time necessary to advance important legislative agendas.

When we look at why we are where we are today, we also have to identify the fact that the government needs to bear a lot of responsibility for the mismanagement of its own legislative agenda. It has left a lot of very important bills in limbo. We are not very sure if the Liberals will have the runway left for them to arrive at the Governor General's doorstep for the all-important royal assent.

We seem to be operating right now under this sort of manufactured emergency. I use that term because if my colleagues look at the parliamentary calendar, we as a House are scheduled to return on Monday, September 20. Therefore, there really is no reason for this panicked rush to try to get these bills passed or sent to the Senate. We should, under normal circumstances, be planning to have a pleasant summer in our constituencies where we get to engage with our constituents and, hopefully, as the lockdowns lift, attend limited participation in community events. Then as the summer draws to an end, we should look forward to our return to Ottawa, to the House of Commons, on September 20, when we can resume this important business.

The reason we are operating under these circumstances right now, which is quite clear to anyone who has the slightest sense of political know-how and what is quite apparent to many skilled observers, is that the Liberals are very much putting everything into place to call an election. There is no matter of confidence coming up except, of course, the votes on the estimates. There is no motion before the House, no budget, except for Bill C-30, which I believe will pass because we do not want to have an election during this third wave, from which we are recovering. The only plausible reason we would be entering into an election is because the Prime Minister will take it upon himself to visit the Governor General unilaterally and recommend the dissolution of Parliament, as the Liberals seek a new mandate. All signs are pointing toward this.

We should have the time when we return on September 20 to effectively deal with a lot of this. We scheduled a take-note debate next week to give MPs who are not running again the opportunity to give their farewell speeches. The Liberal Party has implemented an emergency order so it can hand-pick preferred candidates instead of letting local riding associations democratically go through the process of selecting their own people. The signs are all there.

When I look at the House schedule for March and April, and the government's completely scattergun approach to how Government Orders were being scheduled at the time, there was really no rhyme, reason or logical pattern to the government bills that came before the House. The Liberals are paying the price for that right now. At the time, they should have identified maybe two or three key priority pieces of legislation and put all their efforts into seeing those across the finish line. Instead, they wasted a lot of time on bills that really were not going anywhere. This is why we see this rush right now.

The Liberals have to realize that this is a minority Parliament. Yes, they are the government, but they were elected to that position with only 33% of the vote in the 2019 election. By virtue of the quirks of our first past the post system, even though the Conservatives got more Canadians to vote for them, the Liberals still ended up with more seats. Therefore, they have to realize that if we are in fact going to have government legislation passed, they have to do so with the consent of another opposition party, and that is a good thing. As an opposition member who sat across the benches from a Liberal majority government, it is good policy and gets more Canadians involved when we have more voices at the table and we try to reach that kind of consensus.

I am proud of how the parties have worked during the worst of the pandemic. If we look back at the history of how we were able to work together in the 2020, I am really proud of the accomplishments that New Democrats were able to provide for Canadians. The major amendments we made to pandemic response programs, such as the Canada emergency response benefit, increasing the Canadian emergency wage subsidy from the initial 10% to 75%, getting those improvements to programs for students and persons with disabilities, putting pressure on the government to fix the much-maligned commercial rental assistance program and ensuring that it was turned into a subsidy that went directly to the tenants instead of having this complex process that involved landlords, are good accomplishments and really demonstrate how minority parliaments are able to work. Again, we are not scheduled to have an election until the year 2023, so theoretically we could have two more years of this, where more voices are at the table for important legislation.

I would like to turn my attention to some of those important bills that will be well served by the extra time we get as a Parliament to debate. I am very proud of the fact that Bill C-15 has made its way to the other place. I want to take the time to recognize Romeo Saganash who brought in Bill C-262, which served as the precursor to Bill C-15. I am glad to see that important legislation seems to be on its way to becoming one of the statutes of Canada and that we will finally have in place an important legislative framework to ensure that federal laws are brought into harmony with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

However, there are two bills in particular that have not yet crossed the House of Commons' finish line, and those are Bill C-6 and Bill C-12.

I had the opportunity to speak to Bill C-6 earlier this week. It is incredibly important legislation. It is a very important use of federal criminal law power. It is high time the House of Commons, indeed the wider Parliament of Canada, made this very significant and important amendment to the Criminal Code to ban this practice. It has been rightly criticized by many professional organizations around the world and we know it has done incredible harm to people who have been forced through it.

It is sad to see members of the Conservative Party trying to hold up this legislation. They are clinging to the belief that the definition of conversion therapy in that bill is not specific enough. Those arguments have been discounted. They have been refuted effectively through debate in the House. I look forward to us having the required number of hours to get Bill C-6 passed so we can get it on its way to the Senate. It is incredibly important for us to get the bill passed into law.

The other bill that we hope will be affected in a positive way by the passage of government Motion No. 8 is Bill C-12. I would agree with some people that Bill C-12 still leaves a lot to be desired, but the important thing to remember is that this is a Liberal government bill and improvements have been made. The amendments made at committee have made it a stronger bill from what was initially on offer at the second reading stage. We need to see that bill brought back to the House. We need to see it passed at third reading and passed on to the Senate.

We are in a critical decade for properly addressing climate change and we need to have those legislative targets put in place. I think of all the years that we have lost since Jack Layton first attempted to pass a bill to put in place those legislative targets. I think about the damage that has been done by climate change since then, about how much further Canada would be ahead if we had taken the steps necessary all those years ago.

We see Bill C-12 as an absolute priority and we want to see it positively impacted by the extension of sitting hours. I want to take the time to acknowledge the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley and the member for Victoria for their incredible work on the bill, helping to shepherd its way through the committee process and for their sustained engagement with the Minister of Environment in laying out our priorities. I want to take the time to acknowledge that.

With Bill C-6, I would be remiss if I did not mention my hon. colleague and neighbour, the member for Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, for his incredible advocacy on this issue over the years. He has done yeoman's work on the bill during debate, standing and refuting some of the Conservative arguments against it. He deserves special recognition in attaching importance to that bill and in trying to get it through to the finish line.

I want to reiterate that I was elected to come to this place to work. We all knew when we signed up to be members of Parliament, when we were privileged enough to be elected, that this job would sometimes require us to sit extended hours, to work those long hours, to do the work on behalf of our constituents. We certainly have a lot of stuff pulling at our attention these days. It is a careful balancing act between our critic role, our constituency work and what goes on in the House. However, we all know that this is the time of year when we have to roll up our sleeves, get to work, find a way forward to identify the pieces of legislation that are important to us all and work together to get it done.

I appreciate this opportunity to weigh in on Government Business No. 8. I look forward to us having those extended hours next week so we can attach the priority to those bills I spoke about.

Business of the House

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his loyalty to the tradition of the Thursday question.

This afternoon we will continue debating the motion to extend sitting hours. After that, we will proceed to the report stage of Bill C-30, the budget implementation act, 2021, No. 1, and that debate will continue tomorrow.

On Monday, we will resume debate at third reading of Bill C-6, which deals with conversion therapy. Following that, we will consider report stage and third reading of Bill C-12, the Canadian net-zero emissions accountability act.

Tuesday and Thursday will be allotted days.

On Wednesday, we will continue debate on Bill C-30.

In closing, I would remind the House that there will be a take-note debate on Tuesday evening so that members not seeking re-election may make a farewell speech, as agreed upon among the parties.

Ethics

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, that is a bit rich coming from a member who does not respect the work of Parliament. We are meeting here today to discuss a very important bill, and what did this member and his friends on the other side do? They tried to shut down Parliament.

They said they were finished working for the day and were going home. That is unacceptable. We need to keep Parliament open to debate important bills such as Bill C-6, Bill C-12 and Bill C-30. We have to do that for Canadians.

Alleged Breaches of Privilege Presented in the Second Report of the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, there is probably a connection between what I just said and the femicides.

I could perhaps make a connection with our debate on Bill C-6, an act to amend the Criminal Code regarding conversion therapy, an extremely important bill that could be passed quickly if our Conservative colleagues had one ounce of compassion regarding gender diversity.

That is the only answer I have for my colleague.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, as my charming colleague from La Prairie said earlier, we will support the motion because we like to be constructive.

I completely agree with everything my colleague said. This is like a bad relationship, and I am wondering how we ended up here. I am not here to blame anyone, but I do want to talk about the attitude we are seeing from my Liberal and Conservative colleagues.

The Liberals may have made our Conservative colleagues angry by refusing to provide all of the information required to Parliament. This anger has been evident in recent weeks, and it does not contribute to a productive and harmonious atmosphere here. As we have seen today, our Conservative colleagues have been misusing our time here in the House.

Furthermore, Madam Speaker, you may have missed this, but while our Conservative colleagues were requesting votes on some matters of questionable relevance, the charming member for Beauport—Côte‑de‑Beaupré—Île d'Orléans—Charlevoix was singing Qu'il est difficile d'aimer. That about sums up the day we have had.

In the context of the pandemic, the government and the Conservative Party often tell us that we have to take a team Canada approach, even if being part of the team makes it hard to love them at times. I think my colleague's song choice was quite apt because they give us little reason to love them. It is complicated. In the past few weeks between the Conservatives systematically obstructing our work and the Liberals withholding information, it is hard to identify with team Canada.

However, there were some very interesting things on the legislative agenda that were important to me, such as Bill C‑12 on climate. The federal government announced a recovery plan that was meant to be green, but there is no clear direction. It talks about the electrification of transportation and makes an announcement, that I found distressing, on grey hydrogen, which is an oil-based product. I fail to see how that can be considered green. We would be better off with more robust environmental legislation. We are not sure if we will get to the end of the study on Bill C‑12 in parliamentary committee because we are running out of time.

The same goes for Bill C‑10, the culture bill. I know that, in Quebec, the divide between our position and the Conservatives' position on that issue is deep and wide. We believe we should support our cultural sector, but the Conservatives see Bill C‑10 as an attack on freedom of expression. That does not justify bringing Parliament to a standstill by raising points of order that can be a bit silly, in my opinion. We could have made a lot more progress on this bill.

There is also Bill C‑6, the conversion therapy bill, which has aroused what I consider to be the epitome of bad faith. I heard some things last week, some absolutely outrageous things, that made what is left of my hair stand on end. To draw a parallel between sexual orientation and therapies widely justified by certain pathologies is, in my humble opinion, a demonstration of bad faith.

In my introduction, I asked myself how we got to this point. I get the sense that some members of the Liberal Party and the Conservative Party cling very tightly to their ideology. Instead of placing public welfare and the public good above all else, they favour private and partisan interests, which is the worst possible thing in politics. As a result, we have hit the limit of what we can do in a hybrid Parliament. We have to acknowledge the fact that dealing with the pandemic is slowing us down too.

The interpreters do an outstanding job. They are essential for us francophones. Everyone knows that there are two official languages in Canada: English and translated English. Without the interpreters, we cannot participate in democratic life. When we do more work in Parliament, they are the ones who end up exhausted. I do not think we take that into account enough.

The interpreters do an excellent job in committee and in the House. Many members of the House sometimes do not use the right equipment. They are not aware of the impact that can have on people's health. This shows the limits of technology in the context of a virtual Parliament but also the appreciation—I do not want to use the word compassion—that we should have for these people.

We need to commend the interpreters. In fact, I would like to take a moment to thank them. They are essential for us. I would also like to thank the members of the technical team. Some of the older members of the House have trouble using new technologies. Finally, I would like to thank the committee clerks. This is not an easy situation since we are going to increase their hours of work. I get the impression that they already have a very heavy workload.

One of the government's responsibilities is also to ensure that the necessary human resources are in place and that they do not burn out. I think maybe the government needs to become a little more aware of that.

In closing, I am not trying to brag, but my party has showed that we were prepared to co-operate. The expression “team Canada” does not really reflect who we are, but we showed that we were prepared to co-operate. I am sure that, if everyone works together, we will be able to finish the work on the important bills, Bills C-12, C-10 and C-6, in the next week.

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am very sorry. My hon. colleague from Jonquière is absolutely right. I mentioned it, but I used my inner voice. I was unable to speak because my lips were zipped. It happens sometimes and I am very sorry.

You are very kind, Madam Speaker, to give us a chance to share our time. You will not regret it because the member for Jonquière is a great orator. You will be impressed by what he has to say.

Now, for the matter at hand. That reduced the amount of time we would have liked to have in the House. Of course, we must understand that these are extraordinary circumstances. In addition to the pandemic, which is complicating the work that we do in the House and in committee because of limited resources, there is something else going on. I will give my colleagues the scoop. They will be impressed by what I know. We are in a minority Parliament. No one seems surprised to hear that, I see.

This means that an election can happen at any time. Some may expect, and I say so with due regard, that elections may perhaps be called in August, September or October. Over the weekend, the Prime Minister appeared on different television stations. It is as though the Liberals are getting ready. It is as though he had put on his running shoes. It may not mean that he is going to call an election, but it might be about that. Now, we are going to prepare for an election.

There are lots of irons in the fire. A lot of documents are on the table and they just need a little push to be passed. In some cases, it represents the fruit of almost one year's labour. Some bills have been waiting for a long time, and we must try to pass them so we can say that our efforts bore fruit. That is always rewarding.

The Liberals recently told us that they have priorities, including Bill C‑6, an act to amend the Criminal Code with regard to conversion therapy, Bill C‑10, an act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other acts, Bill C‑12, Canadian net-zero emissions accountability act, Bill C‑19, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act with regard to the COVID‑19 response, and Bill C‑30, budget implementation act, 2021, no. 1. Those are the government's absolute priorities.

The Liberals also have two other priorities that they would like to refer to committee. I will not speak at length about them, but I am talking about Bills C‑21 and C‑22. We need to move these bills along.

For reasons it has already given, the Bloc Québécois absolutely wants Bill C‑10 to be passed by Parliament and the Senate, because that is what the cultural sector wants.

Madam Speaker, you know Quebec as well as anyone. You are the member for Brossard—Saint-Lambert, and there are surely artists in your riding who have called and asked you to help get this bill passed because Quebec's cultural vitality depends on it.

Quebec's culture is very important; it is the soul of a nation. This bill must be passed. Quebeckers are calling for it, the Quebec National Assembly has unanimously called for it, and my colleagues know that Quebec's cultural sector is waiting for this bill. We want to be able to accomplish this goal we have been working so hard on.

Unfortunately, we must face the fact that the Liberal Party is in power. I have been in Parliament for a year and a half. I was expecting to be impressed. I thought it would be impressive to see 338 members of Parliament capably and efficiently managing a huge country. As I watched the Liberals manage their legislative agenda I was disappointed on more than one occasion, and even very disappointed at times. They did not seem to want to get anything done. It never seemed as though they were taking things seriously.

For example, the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs worked very hard on Bill C-19, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act regarding the COVID-19 response. We held 11 meetings and heard from 20 experts at all levels, and we finished drafting the report after the Liberals had introduced the bill.

If I were a sensitive guy, I might have thought I had done all that work for nothing. It might have hurt my feelings. Think of how much work went into coming up with solutions to help the government draft a smart bill. Instead, the government chose to introduce its bill before the committee had even completed its study, without even looking at what we had to say. To top it off, the government waited another three months to bring it up for debate, and that debate lasted just four hours.

Then it decided to move time allocation because the matter was suddenly so urgent despite the fact that the government spent just four hours on it over the course of five months, choosing instead to engage in three months' worth of obstruction at the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, which wanted to move the bill forward but was working on prorogation and had asked the Prime Minister to appear.

Once the obstruction was over, we asked if we could carry on with our work, but the government accused us of delaying the committee's work when it was actually the Liberals who stalled things. Once again, the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs had to get to work on Bill C‑19 at the last minute.

That is how the government is managing its legislative agenda, and I could go on about that for hours. On Bill C‑10, the committee wanted the ministers to appear but the government stalled, forcing the committee to wait and obstructing the committee's work. When we were finally able to begin, we were like excited puppies waiting for visitors, but the government said we were too late. However, it is the government that has created the problem we are facing today. We are being squeezed like lemons, and the government thinks that if the committee members are not studying an issue, there is something wrong with them. This is what happens when the legislative agenda is not managed properly.

Nevertheless, the Bloc Québécois will support this motion because we want to move things forward for Quebec.

Foreign Affairs and International Development

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

Madam Speaker, I hope Canadians can see and understand what is going on here, which is that the Conservatives are being a destructive force in the House. They are intentionally doing everything they can to prevent legislation from getting through.

The previous member just said a few minutes ago that he wanted to work with the government, yet what they are trying to oppose right now, what they are trying to prevent from getting to a vote, is a motion to extend the hours of the House so we can continue to do that work on behalf of Canadians.

Canadians should also know and realize that it is only the Conservatives who are playing these games. The NDP and the Bloc are clearly demonstrating that they want to be part of putting forward legislation.

One has to ask oneself, what is it that the Conservatives do not want to see get put forward as legislation? What legislation are they so afraid of? I would argue that it is Bill C-6, a bill to ban conversion therapy. We saw the tactics that they were up to on Friday, intentionally delaying the House.

A member is heckling me right now. I do not think we have to go too far into her record to see how she feels about conversion therapy.

They are intentionally trying to prevent the House from moving forward on progressive legislation such as conversion therapy. We saw what they did on Friday. They held up the House so that we could not debate that. They are doing it again now. They do not want legislation that will protect Canadians, particularly members of our LGBTQ community, to pass in the House.

I am proud to stand with the Bloc Québécois and the NDP to make sure that legislation like Bill C-6 gets put into law as quickly as possible.

With that, I move:

That the House do now proceed to orders of the day.

Extension of Sitting Hours in June

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I value the comment. I, like a majority of members inside the House of Commons, want to be able to sit these extra hours to ensure that we can contribute more to the debate on a wide selection of the very important issues I referenced, such as the environment with respect to net zero, the budget, the support of the Bloc to get Bill C-10 out of committee, which is so critically important, or the importance of the Bill C-6 legislation or Bill C-19. There is so much that is there that we can, through these additional hours, allow for more direct input from political entities in our respective parties and the individual opinions that members might want to express on the floor that reflect the concerns of their party or their constituents. At the end of the day, what we really want to be able to do is provide Canadians the types of supports they need to get out of this pandemic and at the same time—

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

Madam Speaker, I am very glad that we were able to get to this point. I am concerned and disappointed, even in the last half-hour. I think we need to realize that, although members of the Conservative Party will say they want more debate time, in reality nothing could be further from the truth. I would argue that ultimately the Conservatives have been very much a destructive force on the floor of the House of Commons. I would like to explain why it is so important that we pass the motion that the minister of procurement has just presented.

The pandemic really challenged all of us. We needed to find new ways to get the job done, the job that Canadians have been very much relying on us to do. We gradually brought in a hybrid Parliament to ensure that MPs could do their job from wherever they are in the country. This was so it would be inclusive, whether they are up north, the west coast, the east coast or in central Canada, like me here in Winnipeg. We found ways for the House to debate and pass legislation that would ultimately help Canadians during the pandemic. Many bills were passed to ensure that millions of Canadians had the funds that they needed to put food on their table, pay the rent, cover mortgages and so on.

We have a number of pieces of legislation before the House in one form or another. I would like to give some examples of the legislation that are in limbo because the Conservatives are more interested in playing political games than they are in serving the best interests of Canadians. I would like to highlight a few of those pieces of legislation and then make a point as to why this particular motion is necessary.

We have seen motions of this nature previously. I have been a parliamentarian for 30 years now, and I have seen it at the provincial level and at the national level. Political parties of all stripes have recognized that there is a time in which we need to be able to bring in extended hours. In the most part it is meant to contribute to additional debate and to allow the government to pass important legislation. That is really what this motion is all about.

Looking at the last vote we just participated in, it would appear as though Bloc members, New Democrats and Greens are in agreement with the members of the Liberal caucus that we need to sit extra hours. My appeal is to the Conservatives to stop playing their political, partisan games and start getting to work.

There is nothing wrong with sitting until midnight two to four times between now and mid-June. Stephen Harper did it. He had no qualms moving motions of this nature. Yes, we will also sit a little extra time on Friday afternoons. I believe Canadians expect nothing less from all members of the House.

When Canadians decided to return the government in a minority format, it was expected that not only we as the governing party would receive a message, but also that all members of the House would receive a message. The Conservative opposition has a role to play that goes beyond what they have been playing and what we have been witnessing since November or December of last year. I would cross the line to say that it is not being a responsible official opposition.

I spent well over 20 years in opposition. The Conservative Party, with its destructive force, is preventing the government of the day and other members, not only government members, from moving the legislation forward. I appeal to the official opposition to not only recognize there is a genuine need to move this legislation forward, but also recognize that, at the end of the day, we extend hours to accommodate additional debate.

My concern is that the Conservatives will continue the political, partisan games, at great expense to Canadians. I will give an example. Bill C-30 is at report stage and third reading. We were supposed to debate that bill today. Chances are that we will not get to that bill today. We have not been able to get to other legislation because of the tactics of the official opposition, the reform Conservative Party, as I often refer to it.

The last budget legislation was Bill C-14. The first female Minister of Finance of Canada presented an economic update to the House back in late November, and the legislation was introduced in December. For days, the Conservatives would not allow it to pass. This was legislation that helped businesses and Canadians in many ways, yet the Conservatives saw fit to filibuster it. Bill C-30 will pass. It is budget legislation. It is not an option for the government.

Bill C-12 is the net-zero emissions legislation. If members canvass their constituents, they will find out that it does not matter where they live in Canada, our constituents are concerned about the environment and are telling all members of the House that we need to do more. Bill C-12, the net-zero emissions bill, is very important legislation. It answers, in good part, the call from Canadians from coast to coast to coast.

To a certain degree, we have seen a change in attitude by some Conservatives with their new leadership. Some in their caucus do not support it, but the leadership agrees that there is a need for a price on pollution. They seem to be coming around, even though they are five, six or seven years late. Surely to goodness, they would recognize the value of the legislation. Bill C-12 is stuck in committee.

What about Bill C-10? Bill C-10 would update very important legislation that has not been updated for 30 years, since 1990 or 1991. Let us think of what the Internet was like back in 1990. I can recall sitting in the Manitoba legislature, hearing the ring, the buzzing and then a dial tone. We can remember how slow it was.

I will tell my Conservative friends that things have changed. Now all sorts of things take place on the Internet. This is important legislation. The NDP, the Greens and the Bloc support the legislation. The Conservatives come up with a false argument, dig their feet in and then say they are not being given enough time, yet they have no problem squandering time.

Thankfully, because of the Bloc, we were able to put some limits on the committee, so we could get it though committee. If the Bloc did not agree with the government and with that concurrence, it would never pass the committee stage. There is absolutely no indication that the Conservatives have any intent of seeing Bill C-10 pass through committee stage.

If members have been listening to the chamber's debates in regard to Bill C-6, they have heard the Conservatives disagree with another piece of legislation. They say they do not support mandatory conversion therapy, and they are using the definition as a scapegoat to justify their behaviour on the legislation. Once again they are the only political entity inside the House of Commons that is preventing this legislation or putting it in jeopardy. The leadership of the Conservative Party might think one thing, but the reality is that the behaviour of the Conservative Party has put Bill C-6 in limbo.

I could talk about Bill C-21, the firearms legislation. Members know that the Conservatives have been using firearms as a tool for many years. Even when I was an MLA in the mid-nineties, I can remember the Conservative Party using firearms as a tool, and nothing has really changed. The bill is still in second reading. There is no indication at all that the Conservatives are willing to see that piece of legislation pass. Members can check with some of the communities and stakeholders that are asking and begging not only the government, but also opposition parties, to let this legislation pass.

That is not to mention Bill C-22, which is about criminal justice reform. That is another piece of legislation that, again, the Conservative Party has given no indication it intends to let see the light of day or go to committee.

Another piece of legislation that is important not only to me, but should be to all members of the House, is Bill C-19. I understand this important piece of legislation is going to committee tomorrow, but if we apply what we have seen at second reading to the committee stage, it is going to be a huge concern. This bill would give Elections Canada additional powers to administer an election in a safer, healthier way for voters and for Elections Canada workers. It is a good piece of legislation. I am somewhat familiar with it because of my role as parliamentary secretary to the minister, who I know has worked very hard on bringing this legislation forward and wants to see it passed. It is a piece of legislation on which the Conservatives have said we should have more debate.

The government attempted to bring this legislation in a long time ago. It tried to get it to committee a long time ago. One day I was ready and primed to address Bill C-19, and the Conservatives' game at that time was to bring in a concurrence motion, because if they did that they could prevent debate on Bill C-19. That is what they did, and it was not the first time. The Conservative Party does not even recognize the value of it. It is a minority situation. We do not know when there is going to be an election. It seems to me that the responsible thing to do is to get Bill C-19 passed. As I say, it is at the committee stage today. I hope that the Conservative Party will see the merits of passing that bill out of the committee stage.

At the beginning of the pandemic, there seemed to be a greater sense of co-operation. From the very beginning, the Prime Minister has been very clear: He and the Government of Canada have had as their first priority minimizing the negative impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic, and being there in a real and tangible way for Canadians. That is for another speech in which I can expand on the particular argument the Prime Minister put forward.

We can do other things. We have seen that in some of the legislative initiatives that we have taken. As I say, at the very beginning there was a high sense of co-operation and the team Canada approach applied within the House of Commons. The Conservatives started falling off the track last June. One year later, there is no sign that the Conservative Party recognizes the value of working together.

I would remind my Conservative friends that, as we in government realize, it is a minority government. If someone gives me 12 graduates from Sisler High School, or any high school in the north end of Winnipeg, whether it is Maples Collegiate, Children of the Earth High School, R.B. Russell Vocational High School or St. John's High School, I can prevent the government from being able to pass legislation. It does not take a genius to do that.

We need co-operation from the opposition, and the Conservative Party has been found wanting in that. It has not been co-operative in the last number of months. I find that shameful. Obviously, the Conservatives are not listening to what Canadians expect of them. In fact, what we have seen is delay and more delay, to the point that it becomes obstruction.

Conservatives have obstructed the work of the House as it has debated Bill C-14. If I were to draw comparisons, I would compare Bill C-14 and Bill C-3. Bill C-14 is vitally important to all of us. Canadians needed Bill C-14 passed, but look at the amount of debate and filibustering we had from the official opposition.

On the other hand, Bill C-3 was also a very important piece of legislation. All parties supported it. In fact, the initial idea came from the former leader of the Conservative Party, Rona Ambrose. Everyone supported it. We spent many hours and days debating that piece of legislation, when we could have been debating other legislation. Not that the other legislation was not important, but we all know there is no time process outside of time allocation to get government legislation through. That is in a normal situation, when we have an opposition party that recognizes the value of actual debate of government agenda items that they should pass through, but they did not. Instead, they would rather debate it.

We have moved motions to have extended sittings in the past to accommodate additional debate. I say, in particular to my Conservative friends, that if they are going to behave in this fashion they should not criticize the government for not affording time to debate bills. What a bunch of garbage. They cannot have it both ways. I appeal to the Conservative Party to recognize true value. They should work for Canadians and let us see if we can make a more positive contribution and start working together for the betterment of all.

Criminal Code

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

Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-6, which proposes a ban on conversion therapy. I want to say at the outset that I too am opposed to conversion therapy.

Coercive and degrading practices should be banned, and I think my colleagues in the House would agree with me on that. We would not find anybody in this place who is supportive of conversion therapy. However, this bill proposes to criminalize much more than coercive and degrading practices, and we need to protect people from being victimized.

I have spoken and consulted with, and received feedback from, many of my constituents and Canadians from across the country regarding this bill. In a recent mailer, I polled my constituents, and the vast majority of them were not happy with Bill C-6. They are opposed to conversion therapy; however, many are concerned about the definition given in the bill. They fear that it is overly broad and that many conversations would be criminalized.

The voices of the people of Peace River—Westlock echo those of many Canadians who are concerned that this bill might and will criminalize certain types of voluntary counselling and conversation. There are concerns that this overly broad definition of conversion therapy will criminalize different supports, and that this will hurt the people we are trying to protect.

The bill seeks to ban counselling that is related to managing sexual behaviour. My colleague from Cypress Hills—Grasslands described that nowhere else in the world has the same definition of conversion therapy that is presented in this particular bill, which would ban counselling for sexual behaviour. No individual should be prevented from getting the mental or behavioural supports they want.

A Nanos poll conducted earlier this year found that 91% of Canadians support the right of Canadians to get counselling of their choice, regardless of their sexual orientation. Canadians are concerned about the lack of clarity and the broad scope of the bill regarding what constitutes conversion therapy, and this has led them to petition the government to fix the definition.

As a member of Parliament, I have tabled many petitions in the House on this very topic to raise their concerns about the legislation. Some of their concerns include that pastors and religious educators might be thrown in jail for teaching or holding traditional views on sexuality. There are also concerns that this bill would restrict the choices and freedoms of the LGBT community by limiting their access to professional services based on their orientation or gender identity.

As legislators, it is of utmost importance that our bills and definitions are clear. We should not write bills that are imprecise or overbroad and that would be quick to lead to court challenges. I note that the Bloc member who sits on the committee repeatedly brought this point up. He said that we should get this definition right, and I commend him for his work on the committee.

When most people talk about conversion therapy, they think of coercive, harmful, degrading practices such as electroshock therapy, chemical castration and forced lobotomies, among others. These horrific practices should, and have been in many cases, banned. However, this bill would very well criminalize counselling and conversations that are freely sought if they seek to limit or change a person's behaviour, orientation or expression.

The bill before us was first tabled as Bill C-8, but as a result of the prorogation of Parliament, it was reintroduced as Bill C-6. For Bill C-8, there were concerns that the definition of conversion therapy was overly broad, and because of the prorogation there was time for the justice minister to offer greater clarity and a precise definition. However, the bill was retabled without the definition being fixed, and after being introduced and having a short amount of time in debate at second reading, Bill C-6 went to committee.

Many members of this chamber voted to send the bill to committee so that the definition could be amended and given more precision. In its meetings, the committee heard from many witnesses and made some amendments to the bill, but it did not fix the definition. Furthermore, gender expression was included.

There are indeed concerns that people have expressed with the bill before us, including many Canadians who want to maintain the freedom and ability to make their own choices.

We heard recently from my colleague for Provencher about Emmanuel who had shared his story about how he was engaged in a lifestyle where he was bullied and shamed by his school peers, because he was gay. Because of this, he hated himself and even tried to kill himself. After his failed suicide attempt, Emmanuel decided to embrace his identity. Throughout this, Emmanuel's family supported and loved him, and because his Christian faith was a big part of his life, he sought counselling in this area. While he found a diversity of approaches, he finally found a counsellor who became a real mentor for him. Emmanuel said that the mentor counselled him in ways he wanted to be challenged, and he credits his counselling for being alive today.

Now, Emmanuel is clear that he is firmly opposed conversion therapy and supports laws to prevent it, but he is also clear that anyone seeking answers on their sexuality should be free to choose the support that they want. He is concerned that the current definition, unless fixed, would prevent this. In the justice committee he said that:

I stand with you in your efforts to see LGBTQ+ individuals protected and loved. Therefore, I ask that you create a well-written bill that truly bans coercive and abusive methods while respecting the individual's freedom at any age to chose the type of support they want and their desired goal. I trust you will make a decision that will benefit and protect the citizens of Canada while upholding fundamental rights and freedoms.

With the passing of Bill C-6, there are many fears that religious counselling would be banned. Many different faith traditions have teachings about human sexuality. Several teach that there is a difference between behaviour and orientation and that they are not the same thing. There is a variety of reasons why someone might not want to act in a particular way, including their personal faith tradition or just not wanting to do something. If a religious leader offers counselling, sharing their experience or a teaching on sexuality, there is a fear that Bill C-6 would criminalize that conversation.

Canadians may have a variety of reasons of why they might want to reduce a particular behaviour, which may be unwanted or undesired. I know people who have porn addictions, and reducing their sexual behaviour is something that they desperately want to do. It is important that we do not remove or eliminate the tools and resources that enable people to be able to seek the support that they want—

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Madam Speaker, the member's question is a good one. The problem with Bill C-6 is that the definition is so cloudy, poor and overly broad that one cannot clearly define what would be acceptable as far as having conversations, or asking for counselling or asking for help from a spiritual leader or a pastor. That makes the bill very ambiguous and it would capture instances of conversations and counselling that I do not think it intended to do.

As I said earlier, the Department of Justice on its website tried to provide clarification as to the definition. It should not have to do that if the bill were clear. At the end of the day, the legal system will look at what is in the bill, not what is printed on the department's website.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Madam Speaker, it has been very interesting listening to this debate so far. I am happy for the opportunity to participate in this debate as well.

On December 3, Emmanuel Sanchez appeared before the justice committee to tell his story. He said, “I was around five years old the first time I noticed that I was attracted to the same sex.” As he grew older, he noticed the attraction more and more. He was bullied by the other boys at school. He was called crude names. As he sought an escape from the bullying, he found himself drawing near to the girls in a desire for safety and protection.

At times, these experiences, previous abuse and the hurtful words of others caused him considerable confusion. He told the committee he began to question his sexual orientation and gender identity. He hated himself. He hated being alive. He felt lonely and he did not feel safe confiding in anyone. He pursued a dark response to these feelings, but thankfully his suicide attempts failed.

As a teenager, Emmanuel began exploring gay culture. He wanted to understand his sexuality. He wanted to belong. At 16, he began to identify as gay and entered relationships with other men, but he feared rejection from family, friends and his faith community. While he knew that not everyone in his life agreed, he still described them as “very loving, caring and supportive of [him] as an individual.”

Despite Emmanuel's decision to embrace his truth, he described himself as “still very unsettled”. He made the choice to meet with a counsellor. She encouraged him to continue living the life he was living, yet week after week he still felt confusion and not peace. Feeling that he was not getting the support he needed, he made the choice to seek counselling from a pastor. This individual journeyed with him, neither affirming nor condemning decisions related to his sexual identity.

In time, he made a personal decision, his own choice, that he no longer wanted to continue this course that his life was on. He wanted to live his life in a way that was consistent with his faith and beliefs. Had it not been for the guidance and support that he freely sought out and received, he told the committee he did not think he would be breathing today and sharing his story.

This is not a story with a neat and tidy ending. Like every single one of us, Emmanuel is a unique and complex individual. He did not claim that counselling removed his same-sex attraction. He simply said it helped him determine the life he wanted to live.

Emmanuel asked the committee to do two things. He asked that parliamentarians acknowledge that people like him exist, and he asked that they create a well-written bill that truly bans coercive and abusive methods while respecting the individuals' freedom at any age to chose the type of support they want and their desired goal.

While we need multi-party co-operation to do the latter, I can at the very least recognize that Emmanuel and others like him exist. The problem with Bill C-6 is that it writes off people like Emmanuel. It suggests that the choices he has made and the support he has sought are wrong. It removes his agency and tells him that the government knows better than he does what kind of support he needs. Why? The definition of conversion therapy used in Bill C-6 is extremely broad. At present, it could not only capture instances where coercion or violence is present, but also capture something as simple as a good-faith conversation between a struggling teen and a trusted family member or professional.

Let me be very clear. If Emmanuel had described violent and coercive efforts that sought to change his sexuality against his will, this would be an entirely different situation. There is a reason government steps in to protect all of us from those who would cause such harm. It is wrong.

However, that is not what we are talking about. We are talking about a definition that could very well capture conversations. While many members want to pretend that no such problem exists, there were a myriad of witnesses appearing before the justice committee who had the same, or similar, concerns, individuals from the LGBT community, lawyers, medical professionals, clergy. Members might not agree with the view expressed, but when an issue is raised time and again by a diversity of voices, we should at least be paying attention.

Some witnesses warned of potential consequences should the bill not be amended.

Lawyer Daniel Santoro said:

The first problem is that the definition of conversion therapy is overly broad and imprecise. It's likely to capture situations that are not actual conversion therapy and cause confusion. The second problem is that the existing exception for medical treatment is too narrow, because it specifies only one lawful form of treatment: gender transition. The third and final problem is that the exception allowing exploration of identity is unclear and does not adequately protect charter freedoms.

Psychologist Dr. James Cantor said:

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

I choose not to believe the Liberal government set out to restrict the choices available to Canadians based on their sexual orientation, but that is now exactly what will happen should this bill pass. It is not just these folks who will face limitations. Bill C-6 fails to affirm the right of parents to raise and educate their children in accordance with their beliefs. Whether we are talking about religious beliefs or a secular world view, the state has a duty to respect the values that parents choose to instill in their children.

This is not about allowing violent or coercive actions. The law should never protect those committing such acts against children, but the ambiguity created by this bill creates the fear that parents may not be able to set house rules about sex and relationships. In essence, parents of straight children would not be under the microscope, but parents with children questioning their sexual orientation or gender identity could feel as though journeying with their child through this period could result in criminal penalty. The fact the bill could restrict some parents from fully supporting their child and not others is an issue.

Family physician Dr. Jane Dobson told the justice committee:

My question is: Why is the government telling people what sexual or gender goals they should have? They are effectively doing this with Bill C-6, as the bill broadens the definition of conversion therapy from abusive and coercive therapeutic practices to also include talk therapy, watchful waiting, interpersonal conversations and spiritual practices, widening the net to now potentially criminalize parents, spiritual leaders and medical professionals for simply [raising] tested and tried therapy to help an individual reach their self-directed goals.

These are real concerns that many in this place have chosen to ignore in the name of political expediency. It is political expediency. We know this bill was reintroduced after the Liberal decision to prorogue Parliament. It was originally thought cleared from the agenda. The concerns I have mentioned were flagged to the government at that time, so when it later reintroduced Bill C-6, it could have been improved to ensure wide support, but it was not. The justice minister was fully aware of the changes he could have made to better this bill. He chose not to. It would have made sense indeed.

After the first introduction of the legislation, the Department of Justice put the following disclaimer on its website:

These new offences would not criminalise private conversations in which personal views on sexual orientation, sexual feelings or gender identity are expressed such as where teachers, school counsellors, pastoral counsellors, faith leaders, doctors, mental health professionals, friends or family members provide affirming support to persons struggling with their sexual orientation, sexual feelings, or gender identity.

Why did the department feel the need to clarify if the definition of conversion therapy in the bill is any good? If anything, the only clarity brought on by this clarification is that the bill is in need of much more work. The reality is that a disclaimer on the department's website is not the same as legislation. That is why Conservatives sought to find common ground by proposing reasonable amendments that would bring real clarity to the legislation. These amendments were focused to ensure that voluntary conversations between individuals and their teachers, school counsellors, pastoral counsellors, faith leaders, doctors, mental health professionals, friends or family members would not be criminalized.

Finding a balance between protecting individuals from violence, abuse or coercion while maintaining free and open conversation is a balance I think most Canadians would appreciate. Unfortunately, despite the clear indication the Liberals are aware of the bill's ambiguity, they refuse to support these amendments. In free societies, governments must leave space for individual citizens to make decisions about their lives. This includes the space to seek counsel on personal matters, such as one's sexuality.

Canadians can expect their government to respect the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, including the freedoms of conscience, religion, thought, belief, opinion and expression. Like Emmanuel, those with deeply held convictions, who may want to seek advice and support on questions of sexuality, deserve the right to do that. No one should be be able to be told by the government that seeking guidance, asking questions or helping to reconcile faith and sexual attraction is off limits to them.

I stated earlier that Emmanuel had asked parliamentarians to do two things, which were to acknowledge the people who can exist and to create a well-written bill that protects from violence while respecting the rights of individuals to receive their chosen support. Unfortunately, I find that Bill C-6 fails on both points, and as long as it fails Canadians like Emmanuel, I will not support the bill.

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

Madam Speaker, the debate seems to be venturing into the topic of religion.

I was born at the end of the 1970s. Since my parents had communist connections, I was not baptized. I wanted to make a little aside, but it may not be relevant to the debate. However, we are talking a lot about religious conscience and freedom of religion. We have also received a lot of emails from religious lobby groups.

How does my hon. think that right-wing and religious lobby groups influence the Conservative Party's position on Bill C-6, which we are debating today?

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is good to have an opportunity to speak to Bill C-6. This is my first opportunity to speak to the bill. There has been a lot of conversation and I have listened intently to some of the debate.

I will say at the outset that in my riding I received a huge number of phone calls, emails and letters about the bill. Many people were very concerned. There have been petitions brought forward calling on the government to amend the definition in the bill.

Of all of the phone calls, emails and letters I received, 100% of the people in Sarnia—Lambton are opposed to forced conversion therapy. It is harmful: there is no debate about that, so the issues the people in my riding are raising have to do with the definition in the bill.

We know that the purpose of the bill is to ban conversion therapy, to make sure that children cannot be forced into conversion therapy, and to make sure that advertising or benefiting materially from conversion therapy is also banned. These are all good things. As I said, there is no dispute on the fact that everybody wants to ban conversion therapy.

The issue is the definition in the bill, which is overly broad. It would criminalize things that are not conversion therapy. The definition in Bill C-6 says that it is a “practice, treatment or service designed to change a person’s sexual orientation to heterosexual, to change a person’s gender identity or gender expression to cisgender or to repress or reduce non-heterosexual attraction or sexual behaviour.”

The concern coming forward from many people is about private conversations or preaching in the public square, or about counsel and discussions that people might have about people's sexuality or gender expression and issues such as these.

Many people are opposed to the definition that has been put forward. It is not just me here as a member of Parliament with a concern. Across the country, there are 12 million Catholics. The Catholic school boards across the country have come out against the definition in Bill C-6. Again, no one is saying that they do not want to ban conversion therapy, but they are concerned that this will infringe on their freedom of speech, on their freedom of religion and on their freedom to teach what they believe in their schools, and that they will end up going to jail for five years for exercising those very freedoms.

If we look at other people of faith in the country, we know that between evangelical Christians, Baptists, Muslims and the Jewish community, we are talking about another 12 million Canadians. All told, that is 24 million people and many groups have come out of them. Groups of lawyers, the Christian Legal Fellowship and the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs all have come out with concerns about the definition in the bill.

That is 24 million Canadians out of 38 million Canadians, so we are not talking about a minority or a small group of individuals. We are talking about a lot of people who want to have their rights under the charter protected. We need to look into what is it they are calling on the government to do.

They are calling on the government to ban coercive, degrading practices that are designed to change a person's sexual orientation or gender identity. I think we would all agree that we want to do that. They want to ensure that no laws discriminate against Canadians by limiting what services they can receive based on their sexual orientation or gender identity.

The point here is that there are individuals, even within the LGBTQ community, who want to be able to receive whatever type of counselling they want. They believe that is their freedom, so they are concerned. Similarly, people who want to have conversations about their sexual orientation, gender identity or gender expression feel like it is their freedom to be able to do that.

We heard from a lot of parents who were concerned. They wanted to speak with their children about sexuality and gender and set house rules, for example, about sex and about relationships. They did not want the far-reaching definition in Bill C-6 to criminalize their ability to be parents and to set rules and boundaries about what should go on in the household according to them.

We want to allow free and open conversations about sexuality and sexual behaviour and not criminalize professional and religious counselling voluntarily requested and consented to. People have the right to seek whatever help they want. One hundred per cent of the people in Sarnia—Lambton, me included, are opposed to forced conversion therapy.

The Liberals knew that there was a problem with the definition. When the noise started to happen from faith groups and legal professionals who said this would infringe on people's freedom of speech, they published a clarification on their web page. This is the clarification as published:

These new offences would not criminalize private conversations in which personal views on sexual orientation, sexual feelings or gender identity are expressed such as where teachers, school counsellors...doctors, mental health professionals, friends or family members provide affirming support to persons struggling with their sexual orientation, sexual feelings, or gender identity.

That is a great clarification. That is exactly what people were concerned about and exactly what they wanted to hear. Unfortunately, however, judges have to judge by what is in the law, not what is on the government's web page. Therefore, we did what anybody would do. We said that this was a great clarification, that it should be put in the bill. Then it would be clear that we were banning conversion therapy, but we would not be criminalizing things that were private conversations, that were voluntary counselling, that were pastoral duties, all these things.

The Conservatives proposed that be done, but the Liberals would not put the clarification into the bill. Why not? If they really do not want to criminalize things that are not conversion therapy, these kinds of private conversations, which is what they said on their web page, then why would they not put it in the bill? That is something for Canadians to consider.

The Liberals actually accepted some amendments at committee, so they cannot say that they were not going to accept any amendments. They accepted amendments to even expand this to gender expression, so that made the bill even more problematic from the point of view of private conversations, counselling and all the things about which I have been talking.

There are conversion therapy bans in other jurisdictions. We have heard about some of them during the debate. There are other provinces that have conversion therapy bans. The member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan talked about how his municipality had a ban. They have all used certain definitions. Quebec, Nova Scotia, P.E.I. and Yukon all have bans on conversion therapy and they have all used definitions, so that would be a good precedent to look at. The Netherlands, Norway, Germany, Israel and even Albania all have bans on conversion therapy. Therefore, it is worthwhile spending a few moments to talk about what definitions they used and what could we as Canadians learn from people who already implemented something and have not had issues.

Most of the people in the other provinces have used definitions from either the Canadian Psychological Association or the Canadian Psychiatric Association, recognizing that, in fact, it is not a bad thing to let the medical professionals, who understand what practices are acceptable and what practices are not, to define what conversion therapy is.

The Canadian Psychological Association says that, “Conversion therapy, or reparative therapy, refers to any formal therapeutic attempt to change the sexual orientation of bisexual, gay and lesbian individuals to heterosexual.”

The Canadian Psychiatric Association says that conversion therapy is, “a range of pseudo-scientific treatments that aim to change...sexual orientation from homosexual to heterosexual”.

Members can see the key words “formal therapeutic attempt” and “treatments that aim to change...sexual orientation” in these definitions. It is clear from this that they are not referring to conversations.

We know that in Israel, the definition is “any form of treatment or psychotherapy which aims to change a person's sexual orientation or to suppress a person's gender identity.” Again, it is a form of treatment or a form of psychotherapy.

In Germany's definition, it has to be shown that the individual “had not been deceived, coerced or threatened into taking part”, and I think that is important.

If we look at all the definitions I have presented, I think there are a lot of good options for the government to choose from. There are the ones that medical professionals have used, the ones that the provinces have used, and the ones that like-minded countries have used. All of these would be better than the definition that we have in the bill before us today.

Did I mention that 100% of the people who have spoken to me in Sarnia—Lambton are opposed to forced conversion therapy? I have to keep restating that because a lot of times when I am talking about the definition people think I am not against conversion therapy. No, 100%, everybody, including me and those I spoke to, is opposed to forced conversion therapy.

I will talk a little about my own experience and why I think it is clear that the Liberals and, in fact, the NDP want to criminalize things that are private conversations, things that people of faith are concerned about in this country.

When I was on the health committee, we studied LGBTQ health. Conversion therapy was one of the topics that came up during that discussion, and I shared some of my experiences. I was a youth leader for about 32 years in various churches, and over that time, I certainly had numerous conversations with young people about their sexuality. These are conversations that they initiated, and I do not think that anyone would be surprised about what a Baptist youth leader would say when they asked what I thought or what the Bible said about sexuality.

I mean, it is not a surprise. However, conversations were had, and I would say that of the individuals, some of them later came out gay, some of them came out straight, and the relationship with everybody was well established. We are still in contact, and the relationships are good, so there is not a problem. I talked about the benefit of being able to have those kinds of conversations for young people who are learning about their sexuality and trying to understand their feelings and bounce those ideas off of someone.

Do members know what the Liberal and NDP members said at health committee? They said that I should be in prison for having those conversations. I do not think I should be in prison. I really do not, but the fact that Liberal and NDP members thought I should be tells me that there is actually an intent on the part of some members opposite to actually criminalize things that are not conversion therapy. This is why I am very concerned and why I am asking to have the government change the definition.

I will share a story of one individual who came to me who was confused about his sexual orientation and had conversations with me when I was a youth leader. That individual has gone on to be a healthy member of the LGBTQ community, and he sees me regularly.

One day, he showed up at my house with a diamond ring. He had become a manager of jewellery store, and I do not know if he gets a discount or what, but he showed up with a diamond ring that he wanted to give me, along with a beautiful card thanking me for all of the mentorship that I had given to him over the years. He wanted me, every time I looked at the ring, to remember the positive impact that I had had on an individual.

I do not think those conversations are criminal conversations. I think they were helpful conversations. I do not think that anybody should be dictating to somebody what kinds of conversations they can have. I think that that is our freedom, that is something that is really important.

It has been apparent to me from Bill C-6, and even discussing these issues, that I have had a huge amount of harassment and a huge amount of hatred directed at me for questioning the definition in this bill. The same people who would put on a pink T-shirt for anti-bullying day, bullied me all day long on this issue. It is not always easy to stand up, but when I think about it, it is worth standing up for.

One of the reasons for that is because I have a good relationship with the LGBTQ community in my area. I attend their events. They invite me to their events. I go. I have been at the crosswalk reveal. I help their members the same way that I help all citizens. I have advocated for their issues, especially when we are working on LGBTQ health and making recommendations to the government about what we could do to help the community in areas like mental health where there are not adequate supports; things like supporting PrEP, which is paid for in some provinces and not in others; looking at all of the things that we can do and then standing up for members of the transgender community. My sister-in-law is transgender. There is a lack of support. These people are disproportionately targeted for violence. There is lots to be done there.

I am not coming to approach Bill C-6 from any position of being against any member of the community. I heard during the debate some members talk about how they wanted to uphold the LGBTQ rights over other rights. I do not want to be in a country where one group's rights are being taken away in order to give rights to another group.

I think we want to make sure we protect everybody's rights. I think we can do that in this bill. We have heard almost 100% agreement among members in the House that we want to ban forced conversion therapy. Other members and I have provided here today definitions that would be suitable, which would have unanimous support in this House. Again, there is this effort to not change the definition.

Twelve million people In Canada are Catholics. I want them to remember at election time that the Liberal government is trying to erode their freedom of speech and their freedom of religion. Their Catholic school boards are opposed to this and the government will not listen. If a person is a member of other faith communities like the Evangelical Fellowship, Baptists, Muslims and Jews, they are also having their rights eroded. I want them to remember that. There are 24 million of them in this country. If they all vote for their freedom of religion and freedom of speech, then the government will have to listen. That will be very important.

In the meantime, I have done a lot of thinking about this bill and whether it is worth the punishment of having all of the trolls out there not understanding that the issue with the bill is not about conversion therapy. Did I mention that 100% of the people who have spoken to me, and I, are opposed to forced conversion therapy? I hope I mentioned that.

There are men and women who fought for our country. In fact, yesterday was D-Day. People fought and died for our freedom of religion and our freedom of speech in this country. With that I am calling on the government to fix the definition in this bill. We want to criminalize conversion therapy but we do not want to criminalize other things. I hope that the government will recognize that it is not too late to uphold the rights and freedoms that people fought and died for.

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

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

Madam Speaker, I cannot let another speech that grossly misrepresents Bill C-6 go by without commenting.

The speech by the hon. member does so in two ways. First, it equates conversations with practice, treatment or service. There is no reason for such an equation. There is no case in law that he could cite in which a conversation is treated as a practice, treatment or service.

The second way it misrepresents the definition in the bill is that it tries to create a division between someone's sexual orientation or gender identity and the way they live their lives: the way they behave. If the member would like to talk to clinicians, they can talk to him about how repression of sexual orientation and repression of gender identity have been fundamental parts of conversion therapy over time.

This really is a misrepresentation of the bill. I will not speculate on the member's motives.

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

Madam Speaker, it is very interesting to have conversations on this issue with people who are maybe from different kinds of political backgrounds. I recall one conversation I had with a constituent who phoned me upon hearing that I had concerns about Bill C-6. Initially she was very worried about that. We had a conversation for close to half an hour. At the end of that she said, “What you're saying is perfectly reasonable. Why doesn't the government just fix the definition?” I said, “I hope they do”.

This did not need to be an issue on which people disagree. It still does not need to be an issue on which people disagree. There are people all over the spectrum politically who have different assumptions, but we can all come together and ban conversion therapy if we fix the definition and address some of these technical details that are important and need to be addressed. At that point, we can all move forward together.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Madam Speaker, my colleague mentioned that, as a result of the discussion around Bill C-6, he was asked about fixing the definition and that there was a web page put up.

Could he comment on what the reaction was from other members of the community across Canada?

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

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the feedback and will now continue with my speech.

I was quoting from the member for Rivière-du-Nord with respect to the addition of the reference to non-cisgender gender expression. He said:

The Department of Justice website states that “gender expression is the way in which people publicly present their gender. It is the presentation of gender through such aspects as dress, hair [,etc]...” If I go back to the text defining conversion therapy, I understand that the bill would prohibit any practices, treatments or services designed to repress that.

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

The same member said later:

I confess that, as a parent, I have told my daughter that she should not wear so much make-up. From what I understand, by engaging in that practice—and I do feel it can be considered a practice—I would have committed a criminal offence. I'm sure no one wants that.

Despite the serious concerns raised about this further expansion and confusion of this definition, this amendment on gender expression passed the committee by a vote of six to five.

The House has now received back from the committee a bill that is substantially worse than the one it was sent. This is because now it more clearly says any treatment, practice or service, which could be anything at all that involves an effort to reduce non-heterosexual, sexual behaviour or non-cisgender gender expression, so everything from advice about sexual and romantic activities to conversations about dress and make-up, could now very easily constitute a violation of criminal law.

The definition could have easily been fixed, but I think it was for political reasons the government chose not to, because if it fixed the definition then this bill would have had the unanimous support of the House, which would have deprived the government of the opportunity to use this issue to drive a political wedge.

At the end of the day, though, regardless of anyone's evaluation of the government's intention or political strategy here, we are now at third reading and are voting on the final text of the bill. We are not voting on aspirations or intentions, or on a response to conversion therapy as the term was historically defined. We are voting on a piece of legislation that would put many kinds of private conversations, counselling or advice about sex, relationships and anything captured by gender expression under Criminal Code scrutiny. This is fundamentally unacceptable in a free society.

Bill C-6, in its final form, is a bad bill. I will be voting against it and I encourage my colleagues to do likewise. Canadians are rightly disappointed by the politics being played by the Liberals by failing to work constructively with other parties to fix the flaws in the bill. For them, this is now clearly about trying to drive a political contrast rather than trying to get the bill right. The implications of that choice are the freedom of all Canadians to have conversations about sex and relationships being impaired if this bill passes. Such conversations are very different from conversion therapy but they are swept into it by this definition, as written.

We hear repeatedly from government members on effort to set up this false choice in terms of the debate. They try to tell us that we either have to pass this bill in its current form, yes criminalizing conversion therapy but also sweeping up all kinds of other things that have nothing to do with conversion therapy, or we do not pass it and we do not ban conversion therapy.

This is a false choice. This is a false choice of the government's own making. There is an alternative, which is the alternative Conservatives and other members have been calling for from the beginning of this conversation, which is for a clear ban on conversion therapy, a fixed definition and clarity that excludes the private conversations, the conversations that happen where individuals share their opinions about sexual behaviour.

We can have clear exclusions in line with the reasonable amendments proposed at committee and then we can get this done and passed and moving forward quickly. Everybody should want to see that happen, but the government is creating a false choice for political reasons. Let us reject that false choice. Let us fix the definition. I would submit there is still time. There is still time in this Parliament for us to work collaboratively across party lines to fix the definition and pass a clear, comprehensive conversion therapy ban that does not limit the rights and freedoms of people to have conversations about sexual behaviour.

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

Mr. Speaker, if Parliament is seeking to ban something, then it is very important that Parliament clearly know and understand what it is banning. Parliament should be careful to precisely identify the things that it wishes to ban so not to accidentally, through sloppy legislative drafting or through the mal-intent of some and the fear of others, ban things that it does not officially intend to ban.

Whatever may be said about the government's intention in banning something, good intentions are clearly not enough. If it is banning a thing, then it must correctly identify the thing that it wishes to ban and ban that and that alone.

A legislature might wish, for example, to ban violence, but in the process accidentally also ban legitimate acts of self-defence. A legislature might legitimately wish to ban certain toxic substance, but should still be careful to consider the reasonableness of exceptions, considering all the cases in which those substances are used, such as research or secure technological applications.

If the government said that it was going to take tough measures to combat hard drugs, I would likely support those measures. However, if it miswrote the definition of hard drugs to include all potentially addictive substances, including caffeine or alcohol, then I would vote against those measures. It is not because I do not want to stop the use of hard drugs, but because I would object to the misuse of that term to apply to things which were not in fact hard drugs.

It should be a simple thing to say, in general, that when legislation is debated, the details matter, yet too often the rhetoric we hear from the other side invokes good intentions at the beginning and the end of the argument. When powerful people, in this case parliamentarians, do sloppy or imprecise work, even with good intentions, the results can be disastrous.

The government says that this is a bill to ban conversion therapy, so then what is conversion therapy? As I have said, if we are to ban it, then we must first know what it is and how it will be defined in law. This conversation, in general, has been frustrated by the fact that the government toggles back and forth between two very different definitions. One definition is what conversion therapy has actually meant for as long as the term has been used up until the tabling of the legislation. The other is the definition that has been used in the bill. These are two very different definitions. We are on the verge of banning the wrong thing, based on a bad definition.

Let us first look at the historical or traditional definition of what constitutes conversion therapy. About 100 years ago, the world saw the emergence of pseudoscientific practices which purported to change a person's sexual orientation. These involved the use of a medley of coercion, shaming, violence, physical and psychological abuse, electric shock, ice baths, hyper-sexualized heterosexual experiences, etc.

When this matter was first raised in the House, I spent some time reading, watching and listening to stories of people who had been victims of conversion therapy, and was absolutely horrified by the experiences that some people described. Conversion therapy is wrong and it should be banned, and we should be clear about why.

It is not illegal to have an opinion about when, where or how people should have sex. Indeed, it is quite normal for people to make choices about sexual behaviour and to, in certain cases, choose to limit their own sexual experiences based on whatever factors they think are important or to share their opinions about these matters with those around them. If there was something wrong with giving advice about when to have or not to have sex, we would be driving a whole industry of therapists and relationship advice columnists out of business.

However, conversion therapy is something totally different. We can all agree, I hope, that degrading people, making them feel less valuable or less human because of sexual or romantic feelings or behaviour is never acceptable. A belief in universal immutable human dignity is foundational to our way of life. Nobody's orientation or behaviour justifies subjecting he or she to violence, bullying or degradation.

If we were actually working to try to get consensus in this place, then that really could be the basis for an agreement. Conversion therapy, as it has been historically defined and understood, is a bad thing, is contrary to human dignity and should be banned. I think we actually all agree on that.

Notably, there has, for a number of years, been a conversion therapy ban in the municipality where I live. The definition of conversion therapy used in Strathcona County's bylaw on the subject is as follows:

“Conversion Therapy” means an attempt to change an individual’s sexual orientation, gender identity, gender preference, or gender expression; an attempt to convert an individual from one orientation, identity, preference, or expression to another. Conversion therapy includes various physical treatments, chemical or hormonal treatments, drug treatments, counselling, or behaviour modification through shaming or emotionally coercive or traumatic stimuli. Conversion therapy does not include clinical assessment and treatment by a medical professional that explores all aspects of an individual’s sexual orientation, gender identity, gender preference, or gender expression, or that explores an age- or developmental-level-appropriate use of gender transition to align an individual’s anatomical features with the individual’s gender identity.

That is a pretty good definition. Any time this sort of thing is put in criminal law, it probably requires an extra level of scrutiny beyond what could happen at the municipal level. However, I would generally credit our municipal leaders in getting it right. They were able to write a definition that identified conversion therapy as pertaining to a quasi-therapeutic context in which a change to sexual orientation or other characteristics is brought about through shaming, emotional coercion or traumatic stimuli.

The work of this one municipal council made up of nine people shows us that it is possible to get the definition right. That is where we should be in terms of definitions when we talk about banning conversion therapy.

However, Bill C-6 uses a false definition of conversion therapy. As amended at committee, with the amendments carrying the support of Liberal and NDP members only, it now defines conversion therapy as:

...a practice, treatment or service designed to change a person’s sexual orientation to heterosexual, to change a person’s gender identity or gender expression to cisgender or to repress or reduce non-heterosexual attraction or sexual behaviour or non-cisgender gender expression. For greater certainty, this definition does not include a practice, treatment or service that relates to the exploration and development of an integrated personal identity without favouring any particular sexual orientation, gender identity or gender expression.

There are three important distinctions between the definition used by my local municipal council, the mayor of which, by the way, is a former Liberal candidate, which is well aligned with the proper and historic definition of conversion therapy, versus the one used by Bill C-6.

First, the definition in Bill C-6 does not refer to any pseudo-therapeutic context. There is no clear definition of what would or would not constitute a practice, treatment or service. As we pointed out at committee, a key principle of law is that the legislature does not speak in vain, so each of these three things would be understood to be different. A service is more than just a treatment and a practice is something other than a treatment or service. A thing could be any of these three things and still be considered conversion therapy according to Bill C-6, although not according to my local municipal bylaw.

Second, there is no reference to coercion, degrading treatment, traumatic stimuli, etc. being part of conversion therapy. Therefore, again, conversion therapy could simply be a word, a statement or a conversation according to Bill C-6, although not according to my municipal bylaw.

Third, and most important, the definition in Bill C-6 includes references to advice or therapy that seeks to modify sexual behaviour as opposed to sexual orientation, and this is a really radical departure. For the first time, it says that advice or statements that do not seek to change orientation or identity but simply advise about sexual behaviour could be considered conversion therapy as well.

Without limiting the definition of conversion to a pseudo-therapeutic context, a simple, informal conversation between two people could be deemed conversion therapy depending on what it is. For a conversation to cross the line into conversion therapy, according to the definition used in the bill, it would not be necessarily pushing a change in orientation, but simply to be suggesting some modification of sexual behaviour. This is now being called conversion therapy in this new definition invented by Bill C-6.

Therefore, let me make this concrete. Suppose that a close friend of mine comes to me for advice and confides that he is having some serious challenges in his relationship and those challenges have led him to be unfaithful to his partner. Suppose I encourage my friend to be faithful to his partner and stop cheating or suppose I encourage this friend to breakup with his partner and just focus on himself for a while. Now, if, in this hypothetical situation, my friend is straight, then I have broken no law. However, if my friend is gay, then my advice to him has violated the law, because by enjoining him to either reduce his number of sexual partners or to be single for a while, I have engaged in a practice that seeks to reduce non-heterosexual sexual behaviour. The definition of conversion therapy in Bill C-6 is so broad that it would apply precisely to that conversation.

We can hope that I would never be prosecuted for simply giving a gay friend relationship advice, but suppose that similar advice were given by a mentor or a counsellor perhaps to a young person. It is not, I imagine, uncommon for parents or mentors to advise young people in terms of partner reduction, fidelity in relationships, waiting before becoming sexually active, etc. As a young person, I certainly was a recipient of this sort of advice from time to time. However, since any of this advice if given to a gay person would constitute a practice seeking to reduce non-heterosexual sexual behaviour, it could run afoul of criminal law.

To summarize, we have two different operating definitions of conversion therapy: the historic and proper definition; and the false definition in Bill C-6, which extends the term “conversion therapy” to many ordinary conversations, many of which, as the one I described, are not the sort of thing that any reasonable person would want to prevent from occurring.

In light of this simple and very fixable problem, Canadians began to speak out, and my office launched a petition, all with a very simple message: fix the definition. Just fix the definition and then we can all support the bill.

Recently some members of other parties have tried to attack the motivation of those who are concerned about the definition. They have claimed that we are just looking for an excuse to vote against the bill. For those who are levelling this challenge, I would say, “Please, call our bluff”. If they think we are just looking for an excuse to vote against the bill, then why not accept the reasonable amendments we are putting forward and then see what happens?

I am generally loath to give the government political advice, but if the Liberals believe there are members of the House who actually want to oppose a conversion therapy ban, then they should endeavour to address at least the more obvious problems of the definition and thus leave those who allegedly wish to oppose the bill without excuse. Then those who have allegedly been using this excuse simply as an excuse would find themselves in a real bind if the government were to accept some reasonable amendments.

If the Liberals did so, of course, they would find in reality that the bill would pass unanimously. I think at this stage it is obvious that they know this, and that they would rather leave in the definitional problems that we have pointed out, so as to create a political wedge. Sadly, though, it is a political wedge that will potentially cause serious problems for the rights and freedoms of Canadians in terms of the freedom to simply share personal opinions about sex and relationships, even in private.

When this bill came to a vote at second reading, I made the decision to abstain. It was a difficult decision, because I generally do not like to abstain. I worked hard to get here and nobody can vote on behalf of the people of my riding in my stead.

However, there are cases where it is particularly challenging to cast a ballot at the second reading stage of a bill, because while third reading involves a vote on the final text of a bill, second reading is generally thought of as a vote on the principle or objectives of the bill. For those watching these proceedings who may be less familiar with the legislative process, every bill goes through second reading debate and a vote where the general principle of the bill is considered. After that, the bill is refined by committee and then it returns to the House of Commons for a debate and vote at the third and final reading where MPs must consider not only the intention of the bill, but also its substance and text.

Making a judgment at third reading is relatively straightforward, because one is considering the text of the bill in final form. However, making a judgment at second reading about the objective of the bill requires me to evaluate the government’s unspoken intention. Do I agree with what it seems to be trying to do in spite of the technical flaws in a piece of legislation, such that I will support it going forward for further consideration, or do I determine that the flaws in the bill are there by design and demonstrate a policy decision of the government to draft the bill in an overbroad way?

It is sometimes impossible to resolve the question of what the true intent of a bill is without being able to read minds. Ultimately, being unable to resolve this question of the government’s true intention, cognizant of the importance of banning conversion therapy but unconvinced that the flawed definition was simply a drafting error, I decided to abstain from the bill, hoping that I would have an opportunity to vote for it at third reading after committee study.

I had hoped for the best. I had hoped the professions at second reading of a desire to get this right and clear up any ambiguities would turn out to be sincere. When this bill went to committee, it attracted significant public attention and interest, so much so that the committee received close to 300 written briefs from various stakeholders and concerned members of the public. Liberals on the justice committee sadly made a mockery of the committee process by refusing to even allow enough time to read those briefs, refusing to incorporate reasonable concerns and table-dropping amendments to actually make the problems with the definition even worse.

At that stage, where various amendments were considered, Conservative members put forward reasonable amendments that sought to fix the definition. These were opposed by the Liberals and the NDP, who, in the process, also tipped their hand about their true intentions. I noted in particular the comments of the member for Etobicoke—Lakeshore in response to one of the reasoned Conservative amendments.

Conservatives proposed an amendment taking language directly from the Department of Justice website, clarifying that the definition of conversion therapy would not apply “to the expression of views on sexual orientation, sexual feelings or gender identity, such as where teachers, school counsellors, pastoral counsellors, faith leaders, doctors, mental health professionals, friends or family members provide support to persons struggling with their sexual orientation, sexual feelings or gender identity”. This amendment would have taken a big step to addressing the problems in the definition, but when this amendment was put forward, the member for Etobicoke—Lakeshore said, “I'm concerned that this amendment would defeat the purpose of the bill."

Again, during the final stage of the committee study, when Conservatives proposed an amendment that simply sought to clarify in the definition that conversion therapy would not apply “to the expression of views on sexual orientation, sexual feelings or gender identity,” a Liberal member admitted that the adoption of this amendment would defeat the purpose of the bill.

I thought that the purpose of the bill was to ban conversion therapy, not to restrict the expression of personal views on issues involving sexuality. However, this was a clear admission from the government side that restriction on the expression of views is at least part of the purpose of this bill.

I want to salute the hard work of Conservative members on the justice committee, but also to recognize the member for Rivière-du-Nord, the Bloc member on the committee. I suspect that there are many issues on which he and I will disagree, but I know that he took his role on the committee to study and improve the legislation very seriously.

It was the member for Rivière-du-Nord who noted at the beginning of clause-by-clause consideration that the committee had received hundreds of briefs from members of the public that had only been translated and distributed the day before. He noted that it would have shown a necessary level of respect for the public who had submitted these briefs to delay clause-by-clause for one meeting, allowing members to review the briefs and incorporate insights contained therein. Conservatives supported this Bloc member’s motion to allow time for members to review the briefs that had been submitted. This motion was defeated by the Liberals and the NDP, who insisted on proceeding with clause-by-clause without reviewing the briefs.

Ironically, after this bill was considered that day at the justice committee and referred to the House, the government has not even scheduled the bill for a full day of debate until last week, more than five months after its adoption by committee. Therefore, no time would have been lost at all by delaying the clause-by-clause so as to allow members to consider the input from the public, as suggested by the member for Rivière-du-Nord.

The fact is that government voted against this proposal because it did not want to hear the constructive suggestions put forward by the hundreds of Canadians and Canadian organizations that had taken the time to submit briefs and information to the committee. After defeating this Bloc motion, the government worked with the NDP, table-dropping an amendment that significantly worsened the definition, from the perspective of clarity.

The amendment the Liberals put forward without prior notice, added in the idea that conversation therapy includes an effort to reduce non-cisgender gender expression. What would constitute non-cisgender gender expression? Let me quote directly from the committee intervention of the member for Rivière-du-Nord at committee. He said—

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

Conversion Therapy

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

Mr. Speaker, the final petition I will present today relates to Bill C-6. Just like every member of this House, these petitioners want to see conversion therapy banned. No Canadian should be subject to a harmful and degrading practice that seeks to change their sexuality against their will.

They also recognize, however, that the definition of conversion therapy used in Bill C-6 is a poorly written definition. The definition is not used by any medical body in the world, and it will cause this bill to ban not only the harmful practices we all want banned, but also the support that helps certain LGBTQ Canadians. As we debate this bill together today, let us not forget the countless people who have benefited from the type of support this bill will ban, and that they have asked us not to forget about them as we craft this legislation.

LGBTQ2S+ Organization

[Soraya Martinez Ferrada, Liberal, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is International Pride Month, and I want to take this opportunity to recognize the outstanding work that is being done by many LGBTQ2S+ organizations in my riding, particularly Fondation Émergence.

Fondation Émergence held the first day against homophobia in 2003, and it fights every day to educate and raise the awareness of Quebeckers with regard to the realities of the LGBTQ2S+ community.

As a government and as citizens, we have the responsibility to ensure that everyone can live as they see fit without discrimination, no matter who they are or who they love. That is why our government introduced Bill C-6, which seeks to protect the dignity and equality of members of the LGBTQ2S+ community by criminalizing conversion therapy. That is one of the most progressive and comprehensive legislative responses in the world because no one should try to change anyone's sexual orientation or gender identity.

I would like to once again thank Fondation Émergence for the important work that it does in my riding to combat discrimination against members of the LGBTQ2S+ community in Hochelaga, in Quebec and around the world.

Criminal Code

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague, the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley, for sharing his time today.

At the outset, I will acknowledge the LGBTQ community in my riding of Cowichan—Malahat—Langford. I want to put this in the context of the privilege I have of serving as member of Parliament for this beautiful part of Vancouver Island, but also the great responsibility that comes with that. As members of Parliament, we have the power and responsibility to stand up for people in our ridings and communities and across the country who have traditionally been on the margins, who have not been recognized as equals by large parts of Canadian society, and who have been actively discriminated against in the past through our laws and policies.

That is one of the things that we members of Parliament have to do. We have to stand on this incredible stage in the House of Commons to do what we can to change this country so that everyone is equal no matter who they love or what their social background, race or origin. We have to stand up and be champions for every member of our communities. I take very seriously that responsibility and the privilege I have had over the last nearly six years in this role.

We are speaking today about the government's Bill C-6. I want to acknowledge and thank the Minister of Justice for bringing forward Bill C-6. I know he held many consultations. My NDP colleague, the member for Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, was part of those consultations and I would like to thank him for his advocacy in the House.

The bill before us, Bill C-6, would amend the Criminal Code. It got me thinking about federal criminal law power in general, because it is a powerful tool of the federal government. We know from previous rulings of the Supreme Court of Canada that a valid criminal law power requires, number one, a prohibition; number two, a penalty; and number three, a valid criminal law purpose. Those have been traditionally listed as peace, order, security, morality and health. Those are the broad areas in which federal criminal law power can be applied.

Bill C-6 and the practice it is trying to prohibit fall very clearly under security and morality, because it is so morally wrong to force people to undergo a change from who they are. It also applies under section 7 of the charter: security of the person. Individuals are being denied security of the person by being forced to go through conversion therapy. We know this is an extremely harmful practice. We have heard testimony about how it has ruined lives. As many members who have spoken to Bill C-6 before me have said, when I speak with constituents they always express surprise that this practice is still ongoing in Canada.

Reparative or conversion therapy is a very dangerous practice that targets LGBTQ youth and seeks to change their sexual or gender identities. It has sometimes been called reparative therapy, but I hate the fact that we are even using the word “therapy”. Therapy, in my mind and I think in the minds of most Canadians, indicates a practice or some sort of counselling that is going to help someone get to a better place. This does not do that in any way. It is a range of dangerous and discredited practices that falsely claim to change a person's sexual orientation or gender identity or expression and it has been found by all experts to be fraudulent and harmful. In fact, the practice has been rejected by every mainstream medical and mental health organization for decades, but because there is continuing discrimination and societal bias against LGBTQ people, some practitioners continue to conduct this practice.

We know that minors are especially vulnerable, and that being forced to undergo conversion therapy leads them to experience depression, anxiety, drug use, homelessness and, in worst cases, death by suicide. We heard powerful testimony at the justice committee from survivors of conversion therapy, even before the bill began its formal process of debate, documenting what this practice had done to their lives. The fact that it is still going on in Canada leads to a lot of shock.

To show how much the world has changed in a short time, but also the changes that we still need to see, until 1990 homosexuality was considered by the World Health Organization to be a mental disorder. Today we are in the unfortunate position where gay sex remains illegal in 68 nations around the world. In those countries homosexuality has very serious penalties, including the death penalty and complete ostracization from mainstream society.

Canada has an important role to play on the world stage to show that we accept people for who they are and that we do not judge. We also have to be a voice of moral clarity on the world stage and speak out against those harmful practices. We do that to some extent.

The societal pressure of forcing gay and trans people to become heterosexual, or to be some kind of a societal norm, has been extremely harmful. Many conversion therapy practices have been based on religion, and have included talk therapy, hypnosis and, in some cases, electrical shocks and fasting.

It is incumbent upon us in the House of Commons, as the people's elected representatives, to recognize how harmful this practice is and to make our voices heard and say, “No more.” We are going to use the full force of the federal criminal law power, make a stand and declare how harmful this practice is, and we are going to take steps to prohibit it.

Particular sections of the bill include prohibitions against forced conversion therapy, against causing a child to undergo conversion therapy, against advertising conversion therapy and against materially benefiting from conversion therapy.

I want to take a moment to address the concerns that have been raised by some of my colleagues in the House. In each of those prohibitions, we see the phrase “conversion therapy.” This bill has taken the time to provide a definition of what conversion therapy is. In response to some of the current concerns, the greater certainty clause of that definition was expanded, and it now says it does not include:

The exploration and development of an integrated personal identity without favouring any particular sexual orientation, gender identity or gender expression.

That means the definition does not include a practice, treatment or service that relates to those specific things. This helps provide that clarity for conversations between parents and their kids, church ministers and parishioners or people who simply want to have that conversation in a semi-formal setting. It does not in any way prohibit conversations from occurring.

In my mind at least, I believe that the concerns have been dealt with, and the harms that come from this practice warrant that this bill be passed.

In conclusion, I would like to say clearly and unequivocally that I will be supporting Bill C-6, and I hope my colleagues will join me so we can send this to the other place for royal assent in short order.

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford.

It is always an honour to rise in the House, even the virtual House, on behalf of the people of Skeena—Bulkley Valley. In fact, in some ways it is even more significant to rise on their behalf in this way because, if I turn my head to the right, I can see the people of this wonderful place walking by outside my office, and it reminds me of the sacred responsibility that I have to do well by them in this place.

I have spoken to LGBTQ youth about what it was like growing up in small rural towns in northern British Columbia. Most of them who grew up in towns like Smithers, where I live, in the 1980s and 1990s say it was not a very tolerant place. Many of them left as soon as they could, off to places where they were more free to be themselves. That is changing, and that is a very good thing.

My office is half a block down from Smithers’s rainbow crosswalk, first painted in 2016. As mayor at the time, I was proud to help make the crosswalk happen, but really it was the work a woman named Anna Ziegler, who wrote to council and got the ball rolling on that initiative.

In the following years it has been repainted, and of course, in northern B.C., these things have to be repainted because of our harsh winters, and the road sand and salt that gets put down every year. In the following years the crosswalk was repainted by the fabulous leaders of the local Girl Guides patrol, who had to don Tyvek suits and respirators to survive the perils of the industrial road paint. It was quite a scene.

A couple years later, in 2018, the group Smithers Pride was formed and the community’s first community-wide pride event was held. At the time, Safeway and the BCGEU teamed up to hold a barbecue. We blocked off the street and it was a wonderful event. I thought it might be northern B.C.'s first pride event, but then I learned that the tiny village of Masset on Haida Gwaii not only has a pride event, but it has four rainbow crosswalks.

I mention all of this because the community where I live, and indeed our entire region, is becoming a place where everyone, no matter their sexuality or gender identity or expression, receives the full measure of respect, belonging, safety and rights, and it is worth celebrating.

This month is pride month, a good month to be conducting this final debate on this important bill before us. Before I talk about the bill itself, I want to recognize some of the folks who have been leading the way when it comes to making my home community a more inclusive place, especially Perry Rath, who is a teacher at Smithers Secondary School, and Brianna van Donselaar, Sophie Perodeau and Sarah Payne. I thank them for the important work they have done and continue to do.

Bill C-6 is about protecting people from a practice that has no place in our society. Let us be clear about what conversion therapy is. The definition in the bill before us calls it, “a practice, treatment or service designed to change a person’s sexual orientation to heterosexual, to change a person’s gender identity or gender expression to cisgender or to repress or reduce non-heterosexual attraction or sexual behaviour or non-cisgender gender expression.”

I read the Department of Justice’s charter statement on Bill C-6, and its description of the harms of conversion therapy is worth repeating here, because it underlines, I believe, why this bill is so important:

Conversion therapy has been denounced by medical and psychological professionals as being ineffective and the source of harm and potential harm. Conversion therapy has resulted, or risks resulting, in harms such as distress, anxiety, depression, stigma, shame, negative self-image, a feeling of personal failure, difficulty sustaining relationships, sexual dysfunction and having serious thoughts or plans of—or attempting—suicide. Its continued existence also harms the dignity of LGBTQ2 people by perpetuating myths and stereotypes based on sexual orientation or gender identity—in particular, that the sexual orientation or gender identity of LGBTQ2 people is undesirable and can and should be changed.

The harms of conversion therapy are clear and well established. This practice has no place in a free, tolerant society such as Canada's, and it is incumbent upon all of us as elected representatives to protect the SOGI community from these harms. Everyone in Canada should be free to love whom they love and be who they are, free from stigma, intolerance and coercion.

Bill C-6 would ban the following: causing an individual to undergo conversion therapy against their will; causing a child to undergo conversion therapy; removing a child from Canada to undergo conversion therapy abroad; receiving a financial or other material benefit from the provision of conversion therapy; and, finally, advertising and offering to provide conversion therapy.

It is clear that there are some Conservative members in this place who oppose the bill and will vote against it, and to be clear, I have met with constituents of mine who have deep misgivings. Most of these misgivings purport to be based on the notion that conversations or counsel between parents and children, or between pastors and those they counsel, could be wrongly caught up in the bill's provisions. These are fair considerations for us to discuss in the debate on this legislation.

However, I would note that the justice committee has addressed this by adding a “for greater certainty” clause that highlights what the definition of conversion therapy does not include, namely, “a practice, treatment or service that relates to the exploration and development of an integrated personal identity without favouring any particular sexual orientation, gender identity or gender expression”. I believe that this should provide some peace of mind as we move forward.

There are two other important amendments I will note. Changing “against a person's will” to the phrase “without consent” utilizes wording that is much more commonly used and understood. Importantly, broadening the scope of the definition of conversion therapy to include “gender identity” and “gender expression” not only makes it consistent with the language used in other legal protections, but also allows it to address new forums of conversion therapy.

I will end my remarks today by acknowledging the member for Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, whose work on the bill has been exemplary and who, sadly, has been the target of harassment and online hate for his work. He is a champion for the rights of the SOGI community, and his work in this place is creating a legacy of safety, inclusion and protection of fundamental rights. I thank the hon. member.

We have a decent bill in front of us that moves us forward as a country and would provide legal protection for people who deserve it. Love is love, and people deserve to simply be who they are. I will end by mentioning that I spoke about the bill to my 16-year-old daughter. I told her that Parliament was working to make conversion therapy illegal. She said, “You mean it's legal?” That is exactly what I think as well.

I wish members a happy pride month. Now let us make this law.

The House resumed from May 31 consideration of the motion that Bill C-6, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (conversion therapy), be read the third time and passed.

Business of the House

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to join my colleagues in congratulating you and thanking you for all that you have done. The fact that you have been there for so long attests to your sense of ethics, professionalism and collegiality, among other things. Thank you once again, and congratulations for all that you have done.

In response to my esteemed colleague's question, this afternoon, we will continue the debate on the NDP's opposition motion. This evening, at the expiry of the time provided for Private Members' Business, we will have a series of speeches and then proceed to the passage of Bill C-8, an act to amend the Citizenship Act regarding the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada's call to action number 94, at third reading.

Tomorrow morning, we will begin with the second reading of Bill C-21, an act to amend certain acts and to make certain consequential amendments regarding firearms, and then, in the afternoon, we will move on to third reading of Bill C-6, an act to amend the Criminal Code regarding conversion therapy.

As for next week, on Monday, we will resume second reading of Bill C-21. Tuesday will be an allotted day. Wednesday, we will proceed with Bill C-30, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 19, 2021 and other measures. Debate on that bill will continue on Thursday and Friday.

Congratulations once again, Mr. Speaker, and I thank my colleague for her question.

Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship

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

Mr. Speaker, for our government, LGBTQ2 rights are human rights. Whether that is domestically or internationally, Canada will always take a strong position. Our record demonstrates that.

What is unfortunate is that the member is very bold to ask that question when just yesterday we were debating Bill C-6 in regard to protecting LGBTQ2 rights for Canadians. What are the Conservatives doing? They are holding up that legislation. The Bloc, the NDP and the government are ready to call the question, and the Conservatives are stopping it. Maybe they want to get their act together and take a position, and state that LGBTQ2 rights are in fact human rights.

Conversion Therapy

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

Mr. Speaker, it is my honour to rise in the House of Commons today to present a petition brought forward by Canadians who are concerned about the government's Bill C-6.

The petitioners call for the House of Commons to take a number of actions: one, ban coercive, degrading practices that would try to change a person's sexual orientation or gender identity; two, ensure that no laws discriminate against Canadians by limiting the services they can receive based on their sexual orientation or gender identity; three, allow parents to speak with their own children about sexuality and gender and to set house rules about sex and relationships; four, allow free and open conversations about sexuality and sexual behaviour; and five, avoid criminalizing professional and religious counselling voluntarily requested and consented to by Canadians.

Criminal Code

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

Mr. Speaker, it truly is an honour to be standing here to speak about this very important bill, Bill C-6. As usual, I do my research, I write my notes and then I stand in the House of Commons and decide I am not going to talk about all the things in my notes, but will share some of the experiences I have had as an ally to the LGBTQ community, recognizing some of the relationships that I have built in this community as an ally and speak with their support.

Back in 2018, I was invited to view the documentary The Fruit Machine in Ottawa. The director brought forward this documentary speaking about what happened in the Canadian Armed Forces to members of the LGBTQ community from the 1950s up to the 1990s. It is their stories that we need to hear today; we need to talk about what actually happened.

To begin, I would like to thank Sarah Fodey for her work to bring this story to light. Sarah was the director of this documentary and stated:

I want people to leave this documentary angry that this [injustice] happened, and committed to talking about it in their own communities. I also want people to cry and laugh in parts of this film.... [Many of the survivors] have used humour as a way to cope, I suspect.... They are magnetic. You want to hear more from them because they make you laugh on the heels of making you cry. It's a beautiful combination.

We need to look at the history of discrimination against the LGBTQ community in Canada to reconcile what has happened and see how we can move forward. That is why Bill C-6 is something to move forward. I will be honest that there are some concerns. Those concerns are not so embedded in me that I feel we cannot overcome them, but I do understand some of them. We need to look at the history in Canada and what has happened to members of the LGBTQ community. We should have great shame. I know that back in 2018 there were formal apologies from all of the party leaders in the House to the members of the Canadian Armed Forces, the RCMP and some members of the civil service, who lost their positions and careers because they were identifying as members of the LGBTQ community.

I want to back go to the history. As I indicated, this goes back to when the fruit machine was being used. During the Cold War, Canada investigated federal employees and members of the Canadian Armed Forces deemed susceptible to blackmail by Soviet spies. This is 2021 and we do not see that anymore, but back then there was a huge concern that members of the LGBTQ community would be used as collateral. They would be used and held as collateral and they did not know what to do in those positions.

Homosexuality was grounds for surveillance and interrogation by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police under the directive of the newly established security panel. Over the course of four decades, thousands of men and women had their privacy invaded, their careers ruined and their lives destroyed because of this scientific machine and a disgraceful mandate that was put forward.

We ask what this machine was all about. To be honest, when we look at it, we can say it is like conversion therapy. They used this machine. They would hook people up and see whether their pupils dilated. For three years, members of the Canadian Armed Forces, the RCMP and the civil servants were put into this situation and had to prove they were not members of the LGBTQ community. This fruit machine was being used to test them, just like a lie detector machine. They were asked personal questions. The types of responses they gave, whether were they stressed or lying, were looked at. We have to understand the discrimination that so many members of this community had gone through while all they were trying to do was serve our great country.

The development of this machine was very riveting. Lots of people wanted to know about it, but it was a failure and after three years, its use was discontinued. The fruit machine story captures the imagination and is truly symbolic of what members of the LGBTQ community were feeling, like conversion therapy. I look at these two things as coinciding.

I look at the way members of our Canadian Armed Forces were treated and think of a story that was published in The Washington Post by Todd Ross, who was in naval combat. I want to read this to look at what we have done in Canada, how we can do better and how this bill would move us forward.

It states:

Todd Ross was a naval combat information operator on the HMCS Saskatchewan in 1989 when he was called out over the public address system, escorted off the destroyer by officers and told he was the subject of an espionage probe.

Over the next 18 months, Ross was given six polygraph tests and interrogated about his sexual orientation and loyalty to Canada.

Eventually, he broke down. Facing a two-way mirror, he admitted to a stranger what he had not yet told some close confidants.

“Yes,” Ross said. “I'm gay.”

The 21-year-old seaman was given an ultimatum: Accept an honourable discharge or lose his security clearance, effectively extinguishing any prospect of career advancement. He chose the discharge and returned home to New Brunswick, where only a few years earlier he had been named the province’s top army cadet.

Ross was one of thousands who lost careers in the armed forces, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and other government agencies during the country’s notorious “gay purge” from the 1950s to the 1990s. A legal challenge brought the policy to an end in 1992. Now its victims are gaining greater recognition.

I want to talk about the person who actually started this process. I have been so fortunate to meet her, not only at the status of women committee as a witness, but also through this work she has done on the LGBTQ purge. Her name is Michelle Douglas. Many people are probably very familiar with Michelle Douglas here in Ottawa and the great work that she has done for the LGBTQ community. She was talking about her time in the Canadian Armed Forces. I want to read from a committee report. It said:

The Committee heard testimony that was consistent with the findings of the Deschamps Report: many witnesses described a sexualized and male-dominated workplace where a culture of abuse, discrimination and harassment based on gender, gender expression and sexual orientation exists. Women and individuals who identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, two-spirit or as other gender identities and sexual orientations...are disproportionately affected by sexual misconduct and harassment in the CAF. The Committee was told that, although there is a belief that the CAF is a “gender neutral” workplace, it is not the case. While women can perform brilliantly in military roles, some do so by conforming to and adopting “highly masculine behaviours and, for some, masculine world views, attitudes and values.” For this reason, witnesses stressed the need for cultural change to create a more respectful and inclusive workplace for all CAF members. Michelle Douglas, Chair of the LGBT Purge Fund, said:

I believe that the military's policy regarding inclusion, particularly towards women—both cisgender women and transgender women—is actually quite good. The military has, of course, all of the things that they must have: pay parity, access to career paths, family support and so on. The establishment of the Sexual Misconduct Response Centre is a good thing and so was the establishment [of things and practices to ensure that we can move forward.]

These are things that I want to talk about because I look at the fact that we are sitting here today and can see how far we have moved forward, but the journey is not over. For members of the LGBTQ community, it is a very important time. That is why I want to talk about what is occurring starting tomorrow, which is the beginning of pride month here in Canada.

I will be honest. Back in 2018, I was really excited to do 160,000 steps for pride. I had gone on the pride circuit and was joining members of the community across this country to celebrate who they are and the fact that they are just the same as me. They deserve the same rights, the same opportunities and equity in this great country.

As I said, pride is such an important time. With pride starting tomorrow, we have to understand where it started. This truly was a political movement. This was because of things that happened in places like the Canadian Armed Forces. We can also talk about New York and things that were happening down there.

This was born out of a fight for the rights of LGBTQ communities. We are doing a really good job when it comes to education, engagement and bringing people together to have these conversations. This is exactly why I am so proud to be a member of Parliament and to have great friends even within this chamber.

Outside the chamber, I also think of my dear friend Anthony who I love dearly and who should be clapping out there. It is great conversations with people like Anthony that help me move forward with my own thoughts. Having those types of conversations is very vital to understanding and education.

I will never walk in the shoes of a member of the LGBTQ community. I am a heterosexual woman who is married with five children. I have never been discriminated against because of who I have chosen to love, but I do understand that members of the LGBTQ community have. That is why I think we need to look at these important milestones.

We look back at 1969, when Canada decriminalized homosexual acts through the Criminal Law Amendment Act. Then we look at some things that happened in 1971. There was the first gay rights protest. Across the cities of Ottawa, Montreal and Toronto and in some smaller communities, hundreds of people gathered to protest and to bring forward the rights of LGBTQ communities. It was 1971. That was the year I was born. Fifty years later, we are still talking about it; we still can do better, and Bill C-6 is one of those ways.

I look at 1973, and pride week in 1973. It was a national LGBT rights event held in August 1973 in Ottawa, Vancouver, Toronto, Montreal, Saskatoon and Winnipeg, so even in two years we saw the growth of this.

However, there was still a lot of discrimination. We can look back at 1981 where, in Toronto there was Operation Soap. These were raids that took place. The police actually stormed bathhouses in Toronto and they arrested almost 300 men for being gay. This was Canada's stonewall. We hear a lot about the stonewall that happened and the movement of pride in the United States that had started to occur in 1969. Operation Soap was one of the largest mass arrests in Canada, and it was over 35 years ago.

When we look at those things, what can we do? We know that the police officers have apologized. The Toronto police chief actually came out and formally apologized. Those are ways of making amends. Those are ways of bringing us together so that we can start having those conversations. Once in a while, it is okay to say, “I did not understand” or “I did not get it”. Understanding what some of these men had gone through during Operation Soap is so important, and I really thank them.

In 1988, here in our own House of Commons, MP Svend Robinson came out as the first openly gay member of Parliament. Today, I know that there are many others and I am so proud because, at the end of the day, we are all here representing Canadians. Regardless of who we love, we are all people first and that is what we always have to remember when we are having these conversations. We are all equal. It does not matter who one loves. We are equal.

In 1990, we saw that there was a change, and the indigenous community started to gather in this, and that is when the term “two-spirited” was coined. This was just taking in the concept that when we are speaking about LGBTQ, we understand the rights of the indigenous people who are also of this community.

In 1995, sexual orientation was included in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. These are things that are progressively getting better, making things better for all Canadians. I am so proud of that. We do know that back in 2000, once again there was another raid. This took place in Toronto and it was a lesbian nightclub that police raided this time. We ask, “why did they do this?” It was because people were homophobic. People were concerned with people's actions and sexual orientation. To me, it is no one else's business.

However, as we are talking about this, I do understand also some of the concerns I am hearing from those who are saying there needs to be a better definition. I can still have that conversation. I know that many members in this chamber will sit there and say someone is either right or is wrong. Sometimes they do not have to be right or wrong. Sometimes, there is just something that is so minute that it could make things a bit better. I was listening to my friend from Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan and I know he is always pushing for just a bit better.

The reason I am looking at this is the testimony that was brought forward in committee. Timothy Keslick had an English interpreter there, and I want to read his introductory statement. It is just a little phrase, but this is where we need to talk and this is where talking always comes out better and we do not have to think of it as conversion therapy. Sometimes it is just understanding. In Timothy's opening statement, he stated:

Under this bill, this kind of therapy would be taken away from me. The bill doesn't make any distinctions between good therapy or bad therapy. The bill would capture my therapy as one that wants to reduce non-heterosexual attraction or, more specifically, sexual behaviour. Without realizing that my therapy isn't actually trying to stop me from dating any guy, it's simply trying to stop me from dating the wrong guy. It's there trying to help me avoid people and situations that would harm me and have already harmed me.

That is why I wanted to bring this up. When we talk about this, there are so many discrepancies on what conversations are, what “talk” is. I do understand. When we see bills like Bill C-10 that are just so poorly written come out from this House of Commons, I understand why many people will say that they cannot trust the current government, that they do not think the government is going to do exactly what they want.

That is why, when I look at this bill, I understand how the government so poorly writes legislation. I get it. It does not mean I have to agree with it, but I understand why there is some conflict within people.

If we look at Bill C-10, for instance, we know that it needs an amendment, but when the government gets the idea that it is right, it doubles down. On this bill it has doubled, tripled and quadrupled down. At the end of the day, I think it is so imperative that we have open and honest discussion. This is why we are having this discussion on what is good and what is bad therapy.

When we are talking about families, I think therapy helps remove the stigma, which is probably one of the most impressive things I have seen over the last couple of years. With COVID, we see that a number of people need to talk to people. I need to talk to people. My colleagues need to talk to people. Once in a while, we just need to bounce an idea off somebody else who is not a family member, or we need to bounce something off somebody who has been in the same situation.

I think of my own case. I do not know of any members of my family who are LGBTQ, and that is fine. Regardless, I am saying it is important that we have these conversations with our children, that freedom of conversation. I think of my son, who will be 18 years old in two weeks. It is important that I talk to him about sex. Members may ask why I want to talk to my 18-year-old about sex. It is because I want to ensure that he understands consent. I want to ensure he understands how to treat a woman. I want to ensure that he has a healthy relationship.

I have come from unhealthy relationships in the past and that is not a good thing. It takes a lot of time for people to be able to find that bright light, so sometimes having these talks is exactly what somebody may need. That is why when I hear some of my colleagues say that Bill C-6 is not a good bill, I understand why they would say the government writes poor legislation. We want to get it right.

I want to go back more to pride, the members of the LGBTQ community and why I will be supporting this bill overall. I look at the fact we have seen things such as the fruit machine here in Canada. We have seen this in our own backyards, where members of the RCMP, the Canadian Armed Forces and members who serve this great country were told they could not participate because they were gay or lesbian.

There is no space in this world or this country for people to not have equal opportunities because they are gay and lesbian. To me it does not matter who people love, as long as they can love. Those are the things I look at. These are the conversations we should be able to have, but because it is so political, we cannot have them all the time.

I have walked on behalf of the LGBTQ community out there, supporting it as an ally, because I know it is the right thing to do. I know that discrimination continues to happen. I have been in pride parades and had people yelling at me for walking in them.

I felt shame for that person who was yelling at me for walking in that parade, but I was so proud to be walking with those other thousands of people who are walking in them. If I am being yelled at as a heterosexual, I can only imagine how the people of that community feel. Sometimes that is what we need to look at.

This is about compassion. It is about how we help people. It is not about changing their sexual orientation. I do not believe that is something we should be focusing on. I believe in healthy lifestyles. I believe in healthy relationships. I believe in talk therapy when it is good therapy, not bad therapy.

I do not support conversion therapy and I never will, but I thank everybody for having these conversations, and I ask that we do better once in a while. When we have these conversations, let us not tell people they are wrong just because they are a Conservative. Instead, let us figure it out and find a way of getting there together. Unfortunately, in this place, sometimes we find that extraordinarily difficult.

I will be supporting Bill C-6. It is not perfect, but I believe in the principle. I feel eternally inside of me that I must support members of the LGBTQ community, and that is what I will do.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House to debate this bill about a social issue. However, in 2021, we should not have to rise in the House under such circumstances because conversion therapy obviously no longer has a place in our society.

The Bloc Québécois supports Bill C-6. Why? The reason is that the Bloc Québécois is deeply committed to protecting and promoting the rights and freedoms of Quebeckers and has always been quick to combat discrimination based on sexual orientation. Equality between Quebeckers is a fundamental value and an inalienable right in Quebec.

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

From a moral perspective, within a democratic society, it is legitimate to affirm fundamental community values. In Quebec, respect for the gender identity and sexual orientation of all people is a value that the practice of conversion therapy undermines.

From a medical perspective, conversion therapy is pseudoscience. Not only is it dangerous and degrading for the patient, but many studies have also proven that it does not work.

The Bloc Québécois recognizes that the groups promoting these practices are tiny and in a minority. Moreover, the Bloc wishes to state that respect for beliefs must go hand in hand with respect for differences and the assurance of equality among people. I would add that the Quebec and Canadian societies are distinct societies, but they have much in common, particularly in terms of values.

Also, it is fitting that, on a number of subjects, they agree and adopt concordant policies that move toward the advancement of rights. The Bloc Québécois acknowledges the Quebec government's initiative to protect human rights and welcomes Quebec justice minister Simon Jolin-Barrette's Bill 70. The bill aims to put an end to conversion therapy.

The Bloc Québécois is also pleased that the Canadian government recognizes by means of this bill that, as a democracy, it is appropriate to affirm shared values and pass laws that govern practices arising from beliefs that are in conflict with those values.

For all these reasons, the Bloc Québécois feels that the Criminal Code amendments in Bill C-6 are appropriate.

What is conversion therapy? Here is the definition from a Radio-Canada article:

Conversion therapy, or sexual reorientation therapy, is psychological or spiritual intervention meant to change a person's sexual orientation or gender identity with the use of psychotherapy, drugs or a combination of the two.

In Canada, 47,000 men belonging to a sexual minority have been subjected to conversion therapy. According to the World Health Organization, these practices are a serious threat to the health and well-being of affected people.

The Canadian Psychological Association says that conversion or reparative therapy can result in negative outcomes, such as distress, anxiety, depression, negative self-image, a feeling of personal failure, difficulty sustaining relationships, and sexual dysfunction.

In 2009, the American Psychological Association released a study entitled “Resolution on Sexual Orientation Change Efforts”. According to the study, contrary to claims made by those who administer these treatments, they are ineffective and potentially harmful. The study also noted that attraction to individuals of the same sex is a normal variation of human sexual behaviour and that those who promote conversion therapy tend to have very conservative religious opinions. That might be the crux of the problem.

I would like to talk about an interesting point my colleague from Shefford raised. The government finally chose to not only prohibit conversion therapy but to criminalize it. According to people with first-hand experience, some of these therapies were more like torture than therapy.

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

Unfortunately, homophobia still exists in 2021. Expressions of it can be seen practically every day. It is frankly unacceptable that religious groups continue to stigmatize homosexuality. People in this community should not have to live in fear any longer. Human beings should not be subjected to goodness knows what kind of therapeutic process to become someone they simply are not. Many of us know people in our circles who have admitted how hard it still is to come out of the closet and affirm their identity. This bill does not solve all the problems of the LGBTQ2S+ community, but it is clearly an important step in advancing the debate.

Today is May 31, and we only have 17 sitting days remaining before the break. As we know, Bill C-19, which will change how an election is held during a pandemic, was passed under a gag order. Parliament needs to act quickly. I think there is a good chance that an election will be called, and any bills left on the Order Paper would therefore die. As I said, we only have 17 days left to move forward with this bill and all the others.

I am thinking of my colleague from Drummond who has been working very hard to ensure that Bill C-10 is given priority in the House and that it passes quickly. There is also the Émilie Sansfaçon bill to increase EI sickness benefits from 15 weeks to 50 weeks. In the context of a serious illness, such as cancer, we must be able to do something. Now, the question is not whether we are for or against conversion therapy. I think we can agree that it has no place today.

The important thing now is to act urgently on this issue. We have a responsibility as parliamentarians to do so. We have no control over the timeline, since that is up to the government. If it were up to me, a government would have to complete all four years of its mandate and get through all of the debates that arise, so that bills can be carefully studied.

Bill C-6 on conversion therapy reminds us that we must act urgently. I urge all members of Parliament to reflect and remember that we still need to vote and the bill has to be sent to the Senate. We urgently need to move forward.

Also, we need to reflect on the importance of secularism, which is highly valued in Quebec. There are some ultra-conservative religious groups that are having a significant impact on people's lives. We have a moral responsibility to protect these individuals, given the rejection they often feel and the trauma that conversion therapy can cause. The purpose of this government bill is to provide protections.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Salaberry—Suroît, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to say that I will be sharing my time with my esteemed colleague from Abitibi—Témiscamingue.

I rise today to participate in the debate at third reading of Bill C-6, an act to amend the Criminal Code regarding conversion therapy.

What is conversion therapy? Conversion therapy is a practice, service or treatment that is essentially designed to change a person's sexual orientation. I want to stress here that the goal is to “change”, since we are talking about conversion, which involves change. In my research, I learned that around 47,000 people in Canada have been subjected to this type of “therapy”—which I am putting in air quotes—and it is never successful.

I think I have mentioned that I am a social worker and very proud to be an active member of my professional association. I want to point out that Quebec has already had this debate, and that it has been taking real action against conversion therapy since Bill 70 was unanimously adopted in the Quebec National Assembly on December 9, 2020. Ontario and Manitoba have also passed similar legislation.

Passing Bill 70 was one more milestone confirming Quebec's place as a leader in Canada—and the world—in the fight against discrimination on the ground of sexual orientation. Quebec is a great nation that is respectful and open and celebrates sexual diversity. That is something that makes me very proud.

Driven by this deep conviction, this long tradition of respect and the unanimity on the principle at the National Assembly, the Bloc Québécois is obviously in favour of Bill C-6.

It should be noted that the bill the Liberal government introduced chooses not to fully ban conversion therapy, limiting the prohibition to minors and banning advertising and marketing as well as sending a Canadian minor abroad to get this type of pseudo-therapy. In other words, Bill C-6 seeks to ban imposing conversion therapy on children and adolescents. I am particularly sensitive to the whole issue of adolescence because it is a time when a person gets to know their body, a time of self-discovery.

I must say that I am a bit shocked that this topic is still being debated in the House today, but I am pleased to see that the majority of parliamentarians here support the idea of banning this type of therapy, except for a very active and vocal fringe of the Conservative Party, as we have seen today.

The bill seems balanced. To me it covers the bare minimum. Frankly, I am surprised to have to make this speech, since this seems to fall under the category of respecting people's freedom to love whoever they want. Indeed, this is a question of love that we are talking about today. I want to make a point of saying that my wish is that every child and adolescent in Quebec and Canada can feel respected, welcomed, understood, included and loved regardless of their sexual orientation.

I also want to tell them that I have a great deal of empathy for those who are led to believe that they must choose between their sexual orientation and their spirituality, between their sexual orientation and their life in the community, between their sexual orientation and their future prospects, or in some cases between their sexual orientation and their family ties. These kinds of choices have no place in an open, sensible and sensitive society.

In fact, these dilemmas imposed on some young people are, in my opinion, absurd, since sexual orientation is not a matter of choice. It is therefore absurd to think that sexual orientation will determine anyone's place in society. It is also ridiculous to believe that conversion therapy could do anything other than suppress the full and honest expression of their sexual orientation. Conversion therapy cannot cure a disease that, basically, is not a disease or even a flaw.

Let us be clear: the practice of conversion therapy undermines respect for everyone's gender identity and sexual orientation. Conversion therapies are a direct affront to human dignity.

The Bloc Québécois recognizes that the groups promoting these practices are tiny and in a minority, and wishes to broadly state that respect for beliefs must go hand in hand with respect for differences and, at the same time, the assurance of equality among all persons.

However, conversion therapy advocates usually present these so-called therapies as a caring process and well-thought-out therapeutic sessions developed to help people come to their senses and get back on track. They present their sessions as open discussions about sexual orientation.

How can a discussion be open and balanced when the very purpose of that discussion is conversion? How can we believe that this is an open discussion when people are paying, and sometimes paying quite a lot, for a service that seeks to change a person's sexual preferences? How can we believe that these discussions can be beneficial when minors are being forced to participate in them under duress? In my opinion, the answer is obvious.

There is a very significant difference between caring and conversion therapy. Caring comes through acceptance, and when there is acceptance then people can talk about the fact that it is normal for a person to question their sexual orientation, try different things and learn about their sexuality and about the fact that a person's sexual orientation can change over the course of their lifetime.

If we are truly accepting and open-minded, we can recognize that it is completely normal to be gay or to identify somewhere on the broad spectrum of sexual orientation. If we are completely open-minded and accepting, we understand that a person can, at different times in their life, experience something other than heterosexuality, and that is normal. If we are completely open-minded, we understand that being gay, lesbian, bisexual or any sexual orientation is equivalent to being heterosexual. In other words, sexual orientation should not have an impact on the life or the value that a person has.

Not being able to tolerate the idea that an individual can love the person they choose to love is not being open-minded. Those who seek to guide an individual to what is considered tolerable, to suppress sincere feelings and to violate a person's right to live their sexual orientation with dignity, are forced to use arguments based on fear. This places people in a position of making judgments.

I want members to clearly hear me. The Bloc Québécois will definitely be voting unanimously for Bill C-6. All our members, and I did say all, will vote in favour of this bill, as we did at second reading.

I call on all political parties to do the same and to fully, unequivocally and unanimously support Bill C-6 to send a clear message that, in Quebec and in Canada, we respect the dignity of all people who, ultimately, are just living with love.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is so important to me that we deal with facts and not name-calling.

In a recent Nanos poll, 91% of Canadians supported the right of Canadians to get the counselling of their choice, regardless of sexual orientation. I think that says it all, right there. The majority of Canadians want all Canadians to get the counselling of their choice, regardless of sexual orientation.

What this bill does now, since going to committee and coming back, is it removes that opportunity: that right to get counselling in regard to sexual behaviour. That should not be impacted by sexual orientation. Even the Minister of Justice admitted that Bill C-6 prevents consenting adults from getting the counselling they want. In introducing the bill, he said that the government:

[recognizes] that criminalizing profiting from conversion therapy means that consenting adults would be prevented from accessing conversion therapy unless it is available free of charge.

Since when does the government have the authority to tell individual people what they want to do? I think that applies especially here in regard to seeking help with behavioural issues that any Canadian wants help with, and 91% of us think—

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

Madam Speaker, I will begin my contribution to this sober discussion of Bill C-6 and the need to protect Canadians from conversion therapy with experiences in my own life where individuals have been harmed by being directed unknowingly or forced into inappropriate treatments against their will.

My first experience was in the medical field, when I was employed at Souris Valley Mental Health Hospital. From its beginnings in 1921, it was considered on the cutting edge of experimental treatments for people with mental illness. The facility had a reputation of leading the way in therapeutic programming. Early techniques included insulin shock therapy, hydrotherapy, electroshock and lobotomy.

A lobotomy is a form of psychosurgery, a neurosurgical treatment of a mental disorder that involves severing most connections in the brain's prefrontal cortex. It was used for mental disorders, usually defined by a combination of how a person behaves, feels, perceives, and thinks, and occasionally other conditions as a mainstream procedure in some western countries for more than two decades, despite general recognition of frequent and serious side effects. While some people experienced symptomatic improvement with the operation, the improvements were achieved at the cost of creating other impairments. The procedure was controversial from its initial use, in part due to the balance between benefits and risks.

One of the patients in my care was Annie, one of the few remaining lobotomy patients at that time in Canada. Today, lobotomy has become a disparaged procedure, a byword for medical barbarism and an exemplary instance of the medical trampling of patients' rights.

What is remarkable to me is that the originator of the procedure shared the 1949 Nobel Prize for Physiology or Medicine for the “discovery of the therapeutic value of lobotomy in certain psychoses”. Clearly, what we know now would have made this award reprehensible.

Another personal experience with a method of conversion therapy was 30 years ago, when a family dear to me was navigating a behavioural problem. At a young age, a child was suffering anger and rebellion issues, and the treatment recommended to the parents was participation in a wilderness camp experience that taught discipline and built peer relationships. The parents’ grief was overwhelming, learning their young teen was coerced into submission with no compassionate support or counselling and had attempted suicide. Upon extraction from that place and hospitalization near home, they later learned that at an innocent age their child had been traumatized by sexual abuse.

In both of these scenarios, what was considered to be cutting-edge, state-of-the-art or appropriate treatment at the time was clearly abusive and wrong.

Today, in this bill and in the scientific and medical realms, conversion therapy is defined and only applied to the LGBTQ2 community. I support a conversion therapy ban, but not this conversion therapy ban, because this bans more than just conversion therapy. Bill C-6 clearly violates the fundamental Charter of Rights and Freedoms for LGBTQ2 and other Canadians.

The definition of conversion therapy conflates orientation with behaviour. The Bill C-6 definition states:

...conversion therapy means a practice, treatment or service designed to change a person’s sexual orientation to heterosexual, to change a person's gender identity or gender expression to cisgender or to repress or reduce non-heterosexual attraction or sexual behaviour or non-cisgender gender expression. For greater certainty, this definition does not include a practice, treatment or service that relates to the exploration and development of an integrated personal identity without favouring any particular sexual orientation, gender identity or gender expression.

The definition actually defines conversion therapy to include providing counselling for someone to reduce their unwanted sexual behaviour. This means that if counselling is about reducing porn use or sexual addiction but is not seeking to change someone’s orientation, it would still be a criminal act if it is non-heterosexual behaviour.

There are legitimate reasons why people of any orientation may want to reduce their behaviour. This definition, though, would allow only straight Canadians to get that support but not LGBTQ2 Canadians. This would directly violate the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms' equality provisions. It would criminalize any conversation including conversations initiated by LGBTQ2 individuals seeking answers to sexuality questions they wish to explore with family members, friends or faith leaders.

No medical body or professional counselling body in North America uses this definition created by the government for Bill C-6. The Canadian Psychological Association actually defines a psychologist as someone who helps clients change their behaviour, stating, “A psychologist studies how we think, feel and behave from a scientific viewpoint and applies this knowledge to help people understand, explain and change their behaviour.”

In addition to no medical or professional counselling body in North America using this definition, the bill’s definition contradicts itself. The government says that LGBTQ2 Canadians can still explore their sexuality, but exploration cannot happen if they cannot also choose to reduce behaviours that every other Canadian could get help with.

There are many reasons why someone would want to reduce unwanted behaviour without changing their orientation, but the bill would prevent any directional support that would reduce non-heterosexual behaviours. No one suspects that straight persons seeking to reduce sexual behaviour such as pornography use or sex addiction are attempting to change their sexual orientation. LGBTQ2 persons seeking the same kind of professional help could also just be wanting to reduce that behaviour without changing their orientation. Under this bill, however, they would not be able to get help because of their sexual orientation or gender identity. An exploration clause would not protect this treatment.

The language applies to conversations between and with parents, with trusted friends, discussions between individuals and faith leaders, as well as sensitive interactions with guidance counsellors. It also contains no exceptions for the right to conversations between parents and their children. Counsel from these individuals, people who are appropriately looked to for wisdom and support, would effectively be criminalized to the same degree as the damaging and unacceptable practices that all members of the House seek to prohibit. Currently, any course of counselling whereby individuals are seeking to reduce their sexual activities could be considered conversion therapy and therefore subject to legal intervention. This could be corrected.

In Bill C-6, the exploration clause itself directs patients’ counselling outcomes. Even professional counsellors seek not to do that for their patients, so why is the government directing outcomes with this bill? Professional counsellors are like a GPS: They only give directions, but the client decides the destination.

The government’s definition of conversion therapy is not used by governments around the world. No conversion therapy ban in the world bans counselling for unwanted non-heterosexual behaviour. I have reviewed and would be pleased to provide a research document listing 152 definitions of conversion therapy used around the world, including by all the governments that have passed a law or bylaw that are listed on Wikipedia, the United Nations, the United Church of Canada and LGBTQ2 activists like Kris Wells. None of them include sexual behaviour counselling independent of orientation change.

Bill C-6 is much too expansive, based on the fact that Canada's ban actually bans two kinds of counselling: sexual orientation change counselling and reduction of sexual behaviour counselling independent of orientation change. This is why the ban is so dangerous. No medical body or government in the world defines conversion therapy that way.

The UN definition, as follows, would better reflect what the definition of conversion therapy should be in Bill C-6:

“Conversion therapy” is an umbrella term used to describe interventions of a wide-ranging nature, all of which have in common the belief that a person's sexual orientation or gender identity can and should be changed. Such practices aim (or claim to aim) at changing people from gay, lesbian or bisexual to heterosexual and from trans or gender diverse to cisgender.

That is a good definition that this bill should reflect.

As a direct consequence of the flawed definition of conversion therapy, this bill would restrict freedom of choice and expression for LGBTQ2 Canadians. While the bill would allow for measures to change a child’s gender, including surgery and counselling, there is no such liberty afforded for those who wish to transition back to their birth gender. It would restrict intimate conversations intended to limit sexual behaviour, as well as individuals’ attempts to detransition.

This all-encompassing bill would not only criminalize people who listen or speak to those transitioning or having transitioned, but also those who have gone through the process of transitioning, have detransitioned, and are now sharing their stories with others. A simple search of the Internet will expose members to a wide range of thought, opinion, and the personal stories of those who have struggled with gender dysphoria. Not only would these individuals be criminalized by Bill C-6, but they would also be silenced by the implementation of Bill C-10, because of their communications on social media.

Many of those stories include decisions taken at a young age to begin the use of hormone treatment or to surgically alter one's body. For many, these decisions did not satiate feelings of gender dysphoria and, in many cases, worsened feelings of self-image and self-identity.

I will share a handful of these testimonies to have on record today.

In the case of one YouTuber, she, Elle Palmer, started taking testosterone at the age of 16. She had struggled for years with issues of self-hatred and, in her words, began the process of transitioning not in order to look more masculine but in order to hide elements of her body. In her opinion, transitioning was the ultimate form of self-harm. She wanted to change everything about herself and did not see a future in which she could be happy in her own body. At the time, she did not realize that it was possible not to hate her own body.

In another piece of personal testimony, Max explicitly states that gender transition was not the solution to her severe depression. In her words, she feels that she needed a transition in her life, but not from female to male.

Cari's advice to others is that, from her own experience and from her conversations with other detransitioned and reidentified women, “transition is not the only way, or even necessarily the best way, to treat gender dysphoria”. She speaks to her own experience, where she was prescribed hormones after four sessions of therapy. She notes that no attempts were made at these therapy sessions to process personal issues that she raised. She notes that no one in the medical or psychological field ever tried to dissuade her from her gender transition or to offer other options, other than to perhaps wait until age 18. She says, “I detransitioned because I knew I could not continue running from myself...because acknowledging my reality as a woman is vital to my mental health.”

Lee spoke to her experience: “There were all these red flags and I honestly wish that somebody had pointed them out to me and then I might not have transitioned in the first place. If I had realized that somebody with a history of an eating disorder, a history of childhood sexual abuse, a history of neglect and bullying for being a gender non-conforming female, a person with internalized homophobia and misogyny should not have been encouraged to transition.... I wish that somebody had sort of tried to stop me...transition...did not work for me.”

There is another story, which I transcribed from a post on YouTube from July 2019, which has now been made private, so I am going to respect the author's anonymity while sharing her thoughts. She said the following, and I am quoting her.

“I was transgender since I was 15. I’m 21 now.

“I don’t want to be a life-long medical patient. I don’t want to be psychologically dependent on hormones that are made in a lab and injected into me.

“What I want, and what I’ve always wanted, is peace with myself. Not surgically altered self, but my own self. I want to feel an organic love for my body. This body that I was born into, that I was lucky to be born into and inhabit.

“I wanted to find ways of dealing with my gender issues that aren’t medically transitioning, and those ways were not presented to me. Now is my time to make peace with femaleness. With womanhood.

“Even though I’m not good at being a woman, in the sense that I get gender dysphoria, a woman is still what I am. A dysfunctional, wonky, weird, gay, autistic, and completely authentic woman.

“I think I was possessed by some-thing. By an ideology. I can’t understate the role social media has played in all this.

“It’s glaringly obvious to me now that which part of the internet you inhabit for large chunks of time has serious effects on your brain, and your view of the world.

“When it feels right, I’ll tell my parents. And I know they’ll be happy to hear it, because the concerns they had about my 16-year-old self are the ones that I’m just starting to understand as a 21-year-old. I suppose wisdom really does come with age, doesn’t it.

“But, um, yeah, you try telling that to an isolated, self-loathing, gender non-conforming 16-year-old who wants to transition. I mean, you’re going to run into some issues.

“It’s just gender dysphoria that I deal with in my own way now, and I don’t want to go through all the things that I was kind of being, I guess, pressured by these online spaces to go and do.

“I know there are lots of people who are just like me, really, who are going through this same thing, and I have a funny feeling that there will be lots—lots more of us in the next few years as more people who are sort of teenagers, and non-binary and trans at the moment get into their early 20s.

“So, if I can make this resource that maybe people can relate to, because we are, we are, people like us, sort of um, masculine girls and butch lesbians, who were born between sort of the years 1995 and 2000 that have really been the guinea pigs for this.

“For this, whatever this is, going on in the trans community at the moment. We’ve been the guinea pigs and I’m at the other side now, and I really hope that some more people who are struggling with this can get out to the other side. Cuz it’s nice.”

These are not my fabrications. They are the personal, emotional testimonies of those who found that gender transition was not a permanent solution to their gender dysphoria and who found worth in their own process of detransition. These individuals have made their stories of detransitioning, or deciding not to surgically or hormonally transition, public and they stress that they are in no way being disrespectful toward the personal choices of others. This is important. They have friends and, as it stands, Bill C-6 would criminalize people like them. We cannot restrict the free, respectful and exploratory speech of those with valuable lived experience. The overreach of this legislation will harm those who seek to detransition as well as those who, of their own free will, seek support and counselling to change behaviour as LGBTQ2 individuals.

This ban censors conversations. It is not the definition of conversion therapy in Bill C-6 that would censor conversations about sexuality and gender, but the clause on advertising. At the justice committee, the government added the word “promotion” of conversion therapy as a criminal act. This means that free advertising, including verbal advertising, would be banned as criminal as well.

The original wording of the advertising ban states, “Everyone who knowingly advertises an offer to provide conversion therapy is”, and the updated clause states, “Everyone who knowingly promotes or advertises an offer to”. Because the bill defines conversion therapy as merely getting support to reduce behaviour, verbal promotion of a religious event that encourages people to remain celibate, a column that supports detransitioning or any kind of verbal advertising for a counselling session to reduce non-heterosexual behaviour would be made criminal.

Free to Question is an alliance of detransitioners, medical experts, parents, LGBTQ2 people and feminists who want to protect the right of health care professionals to offer ethical and agenda-free psychotherapy services and assessments to gender-dysphoric youth. I think it would be helpful to repeat the list of those participating in this alliance: detransitioners, medical experts, parents, LGBTQ2 people and feminists. They call for an addition to the bill to ensure health care professionals are able to support youth effectively. They wanted this in the bill:

For greater certainty, this definition does not apply to any advice or therapy provided by a social worker, psychologist, psychiatrist, therapist, medical practitioner, nurse practitioner or other health care professional as to the timing or appropriateness of social or medical transition to another gender, including discussion of the risks and benefits and offering alternative or additional diagnoses or courses of treatment.

Every one of us in the House has a responsibility to balance individual rights and freedoms within a diverse society. While the charter protects a pluralistic society, this bill creates a zero-sum game of winners and losers and puts pluralism at risk because the definition of conversion therapy being used causes more harm than good.

Bill C-6, like so many other bills and regulations the Liberal government has brought forward, intentionally seeks to control outcomes based on ideological indoctrination. It goes far beyond the agreed need to ban conversion therapy to controlling thought, speech and behaviour, and stifling democratic freedoms through overreaching legislation.

I support a conversion therapy ban, but not this conversion therapy ban, because this bans more than just conversion therapy. Therefore, I cannot support Bill C-6. Let us do better.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to make a comment about the individual of whom the member spoke. I could not agree more that this individual faced conversion therapy and it was entirely wrong. My heart goes out to him. I certainly hope and pray he is doing much better after having gone through that.

The member also used words like “nitpicking” and "hung up" on having concerns with this legislation. My concerns reflect someone who was part of the study, someone who told committee members that in light of her desire to have help in counselling, she was invisible to them. Bill C-6 is too expansive based on the fact that it now bans two kinds of counselling; sexual orientation change counselling and reduction of sexual behaviour counselling independent—

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I will continue:

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Canadian Psychological Association took a similar stance in 2015, stating that “[c]onversion or reparative therapy can result in negative outcomes such as distress, anxiety, depression, negative self-image, a feeling of personal failure, difficulty sustaining relationships, and sexual dysfunction”.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The bill would define conversion therapy as a practice, treatment or service to change a person's sexual orientation to heterosexual or gender identity to cisgender, or to repress or reduce non-heterosexual attraction or sexual behaviour.

I note that Bill C-6's proposed definition of conversion therapy is restricted to practices, treatments or services that are aimed at a particular process that is changing a fundamental part of who a person is. The bill would criminalize causing minors to undergo conversation therapy, removing minors from Canada to undergo conversion therapy abroad, causing a person to undergo conversion therapy against their will, profiting or receiving a material benefit from the provision of conversion therapy and advertising an offer to provide conversion therapy.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conversion Therapy

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

Mr. Speaker, the next petition I have to present is on Bill C-6. This petition is signed by Canadians across Canada who are concerned about Bill C-6, which we are debating today.

These Canadians oppose conversion therapy, but are concerned about the current definition of “conversion therapy” in Bill C-6. Like most Canadians, they want coercive and degrading therapies banned, however, the definition in Bill C-6 would limit private conversations and freely chosen supports to limit or decrease sexual activity that would be impacted.

The petitioners ask for coercive and degrading practices to be banned. In addition, they would like a more clear definition in Bill C-6 that would not criminalize voluntary conversations and services, including counselling. They also ask for parents to be allowed to speak to their children about sexuality and gender and to set house rules about sex and relationships.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I will be presenting one petition today on Bill C-6 that Canadians have brought to my attention.

The petitioners identify the definition of conversion therapy in the legislation as being too broad, noting it wrongly applies the label of conversion therapy to a broad range of practices, including counsel from parents, teachers and counsellors encouraging children to reduce their sexual behaviour. Further, they raise concerns that Bill C-6 could restrict the choices of all Canadians, including those from the LGBTQ community, concerning sexuality and gender by prohibiting access to any professional or spiritual support freely chosen to limit sexual behaviour or to detransition.

With that in mind, the petitioners call on the House of Commons to do the following: ban coercive and degrading practices designed to change a person's sexual orientation or gender identity; ensure no laws discriminate against Canadians by limiting the services that they can receive based on their sexual orientation or gender identity; allow parents to speak with their children about sexuality and gender and allow free and open conversations about sexuality and sexual behaviour; and, finally, avoid criminalizing professional and religious counselling voluntarily requested and consented to by Canadians.

Bill C-6 requires improvement in order to balance the need to protect Canadians from harm while also respecting the freedom of all Canadians to freely discuss matters of sexuality with trusted family members, friends and/or professionals.

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

Mr. Speaker, the second petition is with respect to Bill C-6, which we are debating today. The petitioners want to see a ban on conversion therapy, but are concerned about problems with the definition and lack of clarity around issues like what is meant by “practice”, and the failure of the government to support reasonable amendments that would have clarified the definition with respect to what this does and does not apply to. In particular, the petitioners want to see the government and the House of Commons ban coercive degrading practices that are designed to change a person's sexual orientation or gender identity, amend Bill C-6 to fix the definition in order to ensure it does not include, for instance, private conversations where individual views about sexuality are expressed, and to allow parents to speak with their own children about sexuality, gender and to set house rules about sex and relationships.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is my honour to present three petitions to the House today on behalf of Canadians across the country.

The first petition is with respect to Bill C-6. Petitioners recognize the need to ban conversion therapy. Harmful, coercive and degrading practices have no place in Canada. Their concern is with the fact that Bill C-6 would go much further than that, because the definition of conversion therapy in the bill is imprecise and overarching. This poorly written definition would restrict support available for LGBTQ Canadians and ban healthy conversations about sexuality and gender identity.

Canadians are asking the House to fix the definition, so that we can get this right.

Criminal Code

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Élisabeth Brière, Liberal, Sherbrooke, QC]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bill C-6 now makes clear that it does not ban good faith counselling. Let me cite the specific definition again, as I did in my question earlier, as it could not be more clear. This definition “does not include a practice, treatment or service that relates to the exploration and development of an integrated personal identity without favouring any particular sexual orientation, gender identity or gender expression.” That is specifically in the bill.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

He added:

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

It is hard to imagine everything he went through.

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

He went on to say:

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

Gabriel Nadeau also added:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conversion Therapy

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

Madam Speaker, the third and final petition is on Bill C-6, the government's bill that purports to seek to ban conversion therapy. The petitioners are supportive of efforts to ban conversion therapy. However, they are very concerned about the definition in the bill, a definition which, in substance, would ban many things that are not and have nothing to do with conversion therapy, including private conversations in which views on sexuality and gender expression might be expressed.

The petitioners call on the government to ban coercive, degrading practices that are designed to change a person's sexual orientation or gender identity, to amend Bill C-6 to fix the definition of “conversion therapy”, thus banning conversion therapy without banning voluntary counselling or criminalizing conversations. The petitioners want to see the government allow parents to speak with own children about sexuality and gender and to set house rules about sex and relationships.

Business of the House

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

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

This afternoon, we will begin report stage and third reading of Bill S-3, regarding offshore health and safety. Tomorrow, we will resume second reading debate of Bill C-21, on the Firearms Act.

On Monday, we will resume third reading stage of Bill C-6, on conversion therapy. That evening, we will consider in committee of the whole the main estimates for the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development.

On Wednesday, we will consider Bill C-22, on criminal justice reforms, at second reading.

Tuesday and Thursday will be allotted days.

Once again, I thank my colleague for his very important question and wish him a great afternoon.

Conversion Therapy

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

Madam Speaker, I am happy to table four petitions in the House today. Hopefully, I will be able to get through them without being interrupted by heckling from the member for Cambridge or the member for Kingston and the Islands, who have a habit of doing that from time to time.

The first petition is with respect to Bill C-6. Bill C-6 is the government's conversion therapy legislation that is currently before the House. Petitioners support the objective of the bill, which is to ban conversion therapy. However, they note that the bill poorly defines the practice of conversion therapy. The definition, as written, is so broad that it could apply to many conversations that simply have nothing to do with conversion therapy.

Petitioners want to see the government support reasonable amendments to Bill C-6 and then work hard to pass a bill that would ban conversion therapy with an effective definition that isolates that particular horrific practice.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am presenting three petitions to the House today.

The first petition is with respect to Bill C-6. The petitioners note that conversion therapy has historically referred to the degrading action of changing a person's sexual orientation or gender identity. They say these practices are wrong and should be banned.

The petitioners note further that Bill C-6 defines “conversion therapy” as:

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

The petitioners note that this definition is very broad and would apply the label “conversion therapy” to a broad range of practices, including counselling or advice from parents, teachers and counsellors that seeks to encourage an individual to reduce sexual behaviour in a particular context.

Therefore, the petitioners are calling on the government to amend Bill C-6 to address concerns about the definition and ensure that the bill bans conversion therapy and does not ban conversations that have nothing to do with conversion therapy.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Madam Speaker, today I am presenting a petition signed by Canadians who are concerned about the definition of conversion therapy in Bill C-6.

The concern is that the broad definition misapplies the label of conversion therapy to a range of practices that include receiving counsel from parents or other trusted authority figures. The petitioners want a clear call to ban coercive degrading practices that are designed to change a person's sexual orientation or gender identity. They also want to ensure that no laws discriminate against Canadians by limiting the services they can receive based on their sexual orientation or gender identity.

The petitioners therefore call on the House of Commons to allow free and open conversations about sexuality and sexual behaviour. They call on legislators to avoid criminalizing professional and religious counselling voluntarily requested and consented to by Canadians.

These issues can and should be addressed. I encourage members to work together to fix the definition of conversion therapy in Bill C-6.

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

Madam Speaker, of the remaining three petitions, the first one is with respect to Bill C-6, the government's legislation on conversion therapy.

While the petitioners support efforts to ban conversion therapy, they ask the government to fix the definition and to revise the language in the bill to ensure that we are actually banning conversion therapy and not creating unintended consequences that are really unrelated to the stated purpose of the bill.

The petitioners want the government to support reasonable amendments along those lines that ban conversion therapy and do not criminalize private conversations that are unrelated.

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

Mr. Speaker, the fourth and final petition I am presenting in the House today is with respect to Bill C-6. Petitioners are supportive of efforts to ban conversion therapy. They are also concerned about the definition of conversion therapy that is used in Bill C-6 and the effect it would have of prohibiting private conversations and the expression of personal views in conversation, things that, in reality, have nothing to do with conversion therapy but that could be falsely defined as such, based on drafting problems with the bill. Petitioners implore the House and the government to work toward a version of the bill that actually bans conversion therapy and to get that bill passed into law as quickly as possible.

I commend these four petitions to the consideration of members.

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

Mr. Speaker, the final petition, signed by constituents and Canadians, outlines some of the concerns related to Bill C-6, specifically that the government ban the coercive and degrading practices designed to change a person's sexual orientation or gender identity, but it raises a number of concerns related to the bill that the government brought forward in this regard.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present two petitions this morning.

The first petition is in regard to Bill C-6 as well. There is great concern from the petitioners that the definition does need to be corrected. If it was, they would certainly support the bill. Their concern is around the way it basically overrides the choices of LGBTQ2 Canadians concerning sexuality and gender by prohibiting access to professional or spiritual support that is freely chosen in limiting their sexual behaviour or detransitioning.

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

Mr. Speaker, the fourth and final petition I am presenting today is about Bill C-6. Petitioners are looking for reasonable amendments to that bill that would fix the drafting problems with the definition of conversion therapy used in that bill. Petitioners do support efforts to ban conversion therapy once the definition has been corrected.

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

Mr. Speaker, the second petition I am presenting is with respect to Bill C-6, the government's bill on conversion therapy.

The petitioners are supportive of efforts to ban conversion therapy but are calling on the government to fix the definition to address the reality that poor drafting in the definition would lead to many unintended consequences, consequences that the government has verbally denied will actually be consequences. However, a close reading of the details of the legislation leaves petitioners very concerned, and they are looking for greater clarity from the government on the language of the bill.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to table a petition today signed by Canadians regarding the definition of “conversion therapy” in Bill C-6. The petitioners agree that coercive, degrading practices designed to changed a person's sexual orientation or gender identity should be banned. They are also troubled, however, by the broad definition of “conversion therapy” that the bill uses. They are concerned that the definition wrongly applies the label “conversion therapy” to a range of practices, such as counsel from parents, teachers and counsellors, encouraging children to reduce their sexual behaviour.

The petitioners call on the House of Commons to ban coercive and degrading practices, ensure that no laws discriminate against Canadians by limiting the services that they can receive, allow parents to speak with their own children about sexuality and gender, allow free and open conversation about sexuality and sexual behaviour and avoid criminalizing professional and religious counselling voluntarily requested and consented to by Canadians.

All of us in this place must work together to ensure that the bill does not prevent anyone from receiving the support that they deserve from trusted family members, educators, medical professionals or faith leaders.

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

Mr. Speaker, the third petition is with respect to Bill C-6 that would ban conversion therapy.

The petitioners are supportive of efforts to ban conversion therapy, but they are also very concerned about the definition of conversion therapy as written in the bill. They believe we should be seeking to ban coercive and degrading practices, but should not be restricting the ability of people to have conversations in which personal views on sexuality are shared.

The petitioners call for amendments to be made to the bill to clearly address these ambiguities in the drafting of the definition.

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

Madam Speaker, the fourth and final petition I am presenting today is on Bill C-6.

The petitioners who have signed this petition are supportive of efforts to ban conversion therapy. They are concerned about the definition of conversion therapy used in Bill C-6, in particular that the definition does not apply narrowly to practices that actually amount to conversion therapy and that it would substantively end up restricting private conversations, conversations that happen out of any kind of pseudo-clinical or therapeutic context.

The petitioners are calling on the government to fix the definition and work towards legislation that simply bans conversion therapy, noting that such a bill would certainly get the support of all members of this House.

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I present petition number 43-2, signed by 1,169 constituents in my riding. Bill C-6 causes great concern. The term “conversion therapy” is vaguely defined in the bill. Under the bill, Canadian parents, religious leaders and teachers would be subject to prosecution under the Criminal Code. Children would be given an irresponsible amount of latitude to make major sexual and medical decisions that would have lifelong implications. The bill would discriminate against LGBTQ individuals seeking guidance and counselling toward heterosexual or cisgender behaviour, and would regulate choices that Canadian citizens should be permitted to make for themselves. Therefore, the petitioners call upon the House to protect the moral, religious, philosophical and sexual interests of the citizens of Canada by preventing the passage of this bill into law.

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

Madam Speaker, the fourth and final petition is with respect to Bill C-6.

Petitioners are supportive of efforts to ban conversion therapy. Petitioners are highlighting problems with the definition of conversion therapy used in this bill. In particular, petitioners note that the bill refers to any effort to reduce sexual behaviour. There may be many cases where people of any sexual orientation would seek counselling or support in the context of a desire to reduce sexual behaviour. Petitioners argue that this should be a choice for an individual, but obviously have no tolerance for violent and degrading practices that would constitute conversion therapy. Petitioners want the government to ban conversion therapy and use a proper definition in the process.

I commend all four of these petitions to the consideration of my colleagues.

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

Madam Speaker, I have two petitions to present today.

The first is in regard to Bill C-6, which is before the House being debated now. These individuals indicate that the definition needs to be fixed. It should state only to ban coercive, degrading practices that are designed to change a person's sexual orientation or gender identity. They indicate that as it is now, it expressly allows counselling and medical and surgical efforts to change a child's gender but prohibits support for a child seeking to detransition to his or her birth gender, and it could restrict the choices of LGBTQ2 Canadians concerning sexuality and gender by prohibiting access to any professional or spiritual support that is freely chosen by them to limit sex behaviour and detransition.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to table a petition signed by Canadians who are concerned about Bill C-6.

The petitioners state that violent, coercive actions that seek to change someone's sexuality against his or her will are unacceptable, but the definition of conversion therapy in Bill C-6 is so broad that it captures instances that do not fit that description. They recognize the impact this bill would have on the choices available to Canadians, including the LGBT community.

The petitioners call on the House of Commons to do five things: ban coercive, degrading practices; ensure that no laws discriminate against Canadians by limiting the service they can receive; allow parents to speak with their children about sexuality and gender; allow free and open conversation about sexuality and sexual behaviour; and avoid criminalizing professional and religious counselling voluntarily requested and consented to by Canadians.

Receiving counsel from parents, teachers or counsellors can be healthy, and this bill must take into account the benefits of talk therapy to those struggling with their sexual orientation or gender identity. These conversations should not be limited by a government that simply cannot know and appreciate the unique needs of every individual. We must respect the choices individuals make in seeking counsel and support. Let us heed the words of these petitioners and fix the definition in Bill C-6.

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

Mr. Speaker, the second petition is about Bill C-6.

The petitioners support a ban on conversion therapy. They ask the government to fix the problems with the definition of conversion therapy to align that definition with definitions of conversion therapy that are used in other bans in other jurisdictions.

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

Madam Speaker, the third and final petition I am tabling this morning is with respect to Bill C-6. The petitioners are very supportive of efforts to ban conversion therapy, but they are very concerned about the drafting of the bill, in particular the definition used for “conversion therapy”. The definition of conversion therapy used in Bill C-6 is like no other definition of conversion therapy used in other statutes, at other levels, that address this practice. The definition is erroneous in such a way that it would restrict private conversations—

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

Madam Speaker, I have two petitions to present to the House today.

The first petition brings to the attention of the House that conversion therapy has historically referred to coercive, degrading actions that seek to change a person's sexual orientation or gender identity which are wrong and should be banned. Bill C-6 defines conversion therapy as “a practice, treatment or service designed to change a person's sexual orientation to heterosexual, to change a person's gender identity or gender expression to cisgender or to repress or reduce non-heterosexual attraction or sexual behaviour or non-cisgender gender expression”. This broad definition, the petitioners indicate, wrongly applies the label “conversion therapy” to a broad range of practices, including counsel from parents, teachers and counsellors encouraging children to reduce sexual behaviour.

Bill C-6 expressly allows counselling, medical and surgical efforts to change a child's gender, but prohibits support for a child seeking to de-transition to his or her birth gender. Bill C-6 could restrict the choices of LGBTQ2 Canadians concerning sexuality and gender by prohibiting access to any professional or spiritual support freely chosen to limit sexual behaviour or de-transition.

Petitioners are calling on the House of Commons to take the following actions: ban coercive, degrading practices that are designed to change a person's sexual orientation or gender identity; ensure that no laws discriminate limiting the services that individuals can receive; allow parents to speak with their own children and to set their own house rules; allow free and open conversations about sexuality and behaviour; and avoid criminalizing professional and religious counselling voluntarily requested and consented to by Canadians.

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

Mr. Speaker, the next petition I am presenting today is from Canadians across Canada who are concerned about Bill C-6 and the definition of conversion therapy.

Petitioners are calling on the government to fix the definition. They are also calling on the government to ban conversion therapy, a degrading practice designed to change a person's sexual orientation; ensure there are no laws discriminating against Canadians that would limit the services they could receive based on their sexual orientation; allow parents to speak to their own children about sexuality and gender, to set house rules about sex and relationships and to allow free and open conversations about sexuality and sexual behaviour; and avoid criminalizing professional and religious counselling voluntarily requested by consenting Canadians.

Comments by the Member for Cloverdale—Langley City

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise to respond to a point of order raised by the member for Don Valley West, who is the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs, with regard to a question placed by the member for Cloverdale—Langley City in the debate on Friday on Bill C-6, conversion therapy.

This is not the first time I have had to respond to these kinds of statements in the House of Commons, unfortunately. What the member for Cloverdale—Langley City did was to hide behind biblical quotations to cast dispersions on gay members of the House of Commons. This is a very serious matter for me. I believe it is, in fact, a question of privilege. It makes it difficult for members of Parliament to do their jobs when they are subject to these kinds of accusations. It also makes it very difficult to encourage other Canadians to run for public office when these kinds of slurs are allowed in the House of Commons.

As I said, this is not the first time I have had to deal with this, unfortunately. On September 29, 2011, the previous member for South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, Russ Hiebert, made a statement in S.O. 31s where he implied that because of my position on certain legislation, I was a friend of pedophiles. At that time, I stood in the House and objected to that statement, first, because as an adult survivor of child abuse, I took very strong offence to that kind of statement; and second, because once again it made it difficult for me to do my job as an MP when subjected to those kinds of accusations. The same excuse was used by the previous member for South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale in 2011, which is being used again, “Oh, I didn't really mean that. Someone has misunderstood because I didn't say word for word what I clearly implied in my statement.”

This does affect me as a serving member of the House. This affects all members of my community across the country when these statements are allowed to stand without apology or removal. I would ask the Speaker take this into very serious consideration and take appropriate action to ensure that this does not happen again in the House of Commons. That can only happen when a member is sanctioned for doing so.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

On Friday, April 16, at the last sitting of this House, we had debate on Bill C-6, an act to amend the Criminal Code, conversion therapy. During the question-and-answer period following my speech opening the morning's debate, contrary to Standing Order 18, the member for Cloverdale—Langley City used language that was offensive to me and, in my understanding, to many other members of the House. While she did reach out to me on Friday evening to offer an apology for “any misunderstanding”, I am of the belief that such an apology should be made not just to me, but to all members of the House and to members of the LGBTQ2S community in Canada and around the world who have expressed their hurt and their anger at her inference.

In quoting Matthew 23:27, the member inferred that either I or all members of the LGBTQ2S community are unclean. As an ordained minister in the United Church of Canada, I am well aware that at its best this passage has been used to deride someone as a hypocrite. However, this passage, along with the whole of that particular chapter, has been used for centuries to bolster anti-Semitism and, very specifically, anti-Jewish sentiments. The misuse of this passage has led to misunderstanding, even hatred of Jews, by Christians, as pointed out by the famed theologian, Rosemary Radford Ruether, in her book, Faith and Fratricide. It is, however, the first time that I have heard it used to cast negative aspersions on members of my community. The biblical concept of unclean has long been disavowed by Jews and Christians alike, and there is certainly no place for it in this House, especially in the debate on important amendments to the Criminal Code, which will further recognize an attempt to heal the hurt perpetrated against lesbians, bisexual, gay, transgendered, queer and two-spirited people. We are not unclean.

I would ask that you, as the Speaker, request that the member apologize and withdraw those remarks, and that you also remind all members to be mindful of their words, which may be heard by other members and by many Canadians as being offensive.

Conversion Therapy

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

Madam Speaker, I also want to present a petition brought to my attention in regard to Bill C-6. I will not read through all of the concerns, but I will highlight specifically two of today.

The petitioners say that Bill C-6 expressly allows counselling, medical and surgical efforts to change a child's gender, but prohibits support for a child seeking to detransition to his or her cisgender. The bill could restrict the choices of LGBTQ2 Canadians concerning sexuality and gender by prohibiting access to any professional or spiritual support freely chosen to limit sexual behaviour or detransition. Their is also a concern about the definition of conversion therapy. We all agree that conversion therapy is wrong, but the bill fails to outline it properly so people are not caught in the crossfire, specifically in this case of those who choose to transgender and then detransition. There is also the concern around a child seeking to detransition.

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

Madam Speaker, I am honoured to present a petition today concerning Bill C-6.

The petitioners recognize the need for a ban on harmful, degrading and coercive practices that seek to force people to change their sexual orientation. They also recognize, however, that the definition of conversion therapy used in Bill C-6 is not used by any medical body in the world and it is so imprecise that it will lead to the prohibition of forms of counselling that reduce unwanted sexual behaviour.

I am sure my colleagues can understand the damaging implications of this, and I remind them that committee witnesses testified that types of counselling this bill would ban actually saved their lives.

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

Madam Speaker, the second petition is with respect to Bill C-6, a bill debated this morning.

The petitioners support banning conversion therapy. They have concerns about the definition, as written. They are calling on the government to ban coercive, degrading practices that are designed to change a person's sexual orientation or gender identity, to ensure that no laws discriminate against Canadians by limiting the services they can receive based on sexual orientation or gender identity, to allow free and open conversations about sexuality and sexual behaviour and avoid criminalizing professional and religious counselling voluntarily requested and consented to by Canadians.

Motions in Amendment

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Madam Speaker, there have been discussions among the parties and if you seek it I think you will find unanimous consent to adopt the following motion: That, notwithstanding any Standing Order, Special Order or usual practices of the House: (a) the report stage amendment to Bill C-6, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (conversion therapy), appearing on the Notice Paper in the name of the Minister of Justice, be deemed adopted on division; (b) Bill C-6 be deemed concurred in at report stage on division; and (c) the third reading of Bill C-6 be allowed to be taken up at the same sitting.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question from my good friend.

This afternoon, we will complete second reading debate of Bill C-15, an act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Tomorrow morning we will start with the debate of Bill C-6, an act to amend the Criminal Code (conversion therapy), followed by the debate at second reading of Bill C-12, an act respecting transparency and accountability in Canada's efforts to achieve net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by the year 2050 in the afternoon.

On Monday of next week, we hope to complete second reading debate of Bill C-11, an act to enact the Consumer Privacy Protection Act and the Personal Information and Data Protection Tribunal Act and to make consequential and related amendments to other Acts. As all members are aware, at 4:00 p.m. that day, the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance will present the budget. Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday will all be days reserved for budget debate.

Finally, on Friday, we will continue with second reading debate of Bill C-21, an act to amend certain Acts and to make certain consequential amendments (firearms).

Diversity and Inclusion

[Patricia Lattanzio, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-6 to eliminate conversion therapy was introduced last year.

I know that the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights heard moving testimony about the importance of taking steps to ban this destructive practice. Bill C-6 will send a strong message to members of the LGBTQ2 community that this government cares for and protects them.

Would the Minister of Diversity and Inclusion and Youth tell us why this bill is so important?

Conversion Therapy

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

Mr. Speaker, finally, I table two petitions regarding the government's Bill C-6. They are substantially the same, with a little bit of difference in the wording. Petitioners agree that conversion therapy should be banned but express concern about the definition referenced in Bill C-6 and ask that the government make efforts to ensure that this is fixed.

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

Mr. Speaker, the third petition is about Bill C-6, the government's conversion therapy ban.

The petitioners are in support of banning conversion therapy but are concerned about the definition of “conversion therapy” that is used in the bill. They highlight the way in which this definition would apply very broadly to practices that have nothing to do with conversion therapy. Therefore, the petitioners call upon the House of Commons to address this drafting error, this problem in the definition, to fix the definition and to put forward a conversion therapy ban that properly defines the practice, one that all members in the House would support.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is my honour to rise today to present a petition from people across the country who have serious concerns about Bill C-6. The petitioners recognize that the overarching definition of conversion therapy used in Bill C-6 will end up causing harm to some of the very people the bill intends to protect.

At the justice committee, members of the LGBTQ community have called the forms of counselling this bill will ban life-saving. They believe it is important to recognize that the definition used by the government in this bill is not used by any medical body anywhere on earth. The petitioners want to see harmful, degrading and coercive practices band.

Let us make sure we get this right by fixing the definition and avoid causing collateral harm to Canadians who would benefit from forms of counselling that may be unintentionally targeted by this bill.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I too would like to table a petition signed by Canadians concerned about the impact of Bill C-6 on the choices available to Canadians, including the LGBT community.

The petitioners join the voices of thousands of Canadians who are calling on the House to, one, ban coercive, degrading practices that are designed to change a person's sexual orientation or gender identity; two, ensure no laws discriminate against Canadians by limiting the services they can receive based on their sexual orientation or gender identity; three, allow parents to speak with their own children about sexuality and gender and to set house rules about sex and relationship; four, allow free and open conversation about sexuality and sexual behaviour; and finally, five, avoid criminalizing professional and religious counselling voluntarily requested and consented to by Canadians.

We, in this place, must respect the choices individuals might make when it comes to receiving spiritual counselling and professional support that is freely chosen. Ultimately, we need to fix the definition of conversion therapy in Bill C-6, and I encourage members to work together to get this right on behalf of all Canadians.

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

Mr. Speaker, the fourth petition, similar to others that have been tabled today, concerns Bill C-6. Petitioners would like to see a ban on conversion therapy. They would also like to see the government fix the definition and correct the errors in Bill C-6, so it clearly targets conversion therapy and is not an expansive definition that bans private conversations that would have nothing to do with conversion therapy, as it has been historically understood.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the people from across Canada who have signed this petition.

I too have a petition calling on the government to fix concerns around Bill C-6. Bill C-6 defines conversion therapy as:

...a practice, treatment or service designed to change a person's sexual orientation to heterosexual, to change a person's gender identity or gender expression to cisgender....

Petitioners are concerned this expressly allows counselling or medical surgery to change a child's gender, but prohibits the child from seeking support to detransition to his or her birth gender. Bill C-6 would restrict the choices of LGBT Canadians concerning sexuality and gender by prohibiting access to any professional or spiritual support freely chosen to limit sexual behaviour or to detransition.

Therefore, the people who have signed this petition call on the House of Commons to ban coercive and degrading practices designed to change a person's sexual orientation or gender identity, fix Bill C-6 and fix the definition of conversion therapy, thus banning conversion therapy without banning voluntary counselling or criminalizing conversations.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have a petition today from constituents who are concerned about Bill C-6 and are calling on the House of Commons to take the following actions: ban coercive, degrading practices designed to change a person's sexual orientation or gender identity; amend Bill C-6 to fix the definition of “conversion therapy”, thus banning conversion therapy without banning voluntary counselling or criminalizing conversations; and allow parents to speak with their own children about sexuality and gender and set house rules about sex and relationships.

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

Mr. Speaker, the fourth and final petition I am tabling today is with respect to Bill C-6, the government's conversion therapy bill, which we are scheduled to be debating tomorrow.

Petitioners are supportive of initiatives to ban conversion therapy. However, they are concerned about drafting problems with this bill, in particular the poorly written definition of “conversion therapy” and the fact that, as drafted, the bill would effectively ban many conversations people might enter into that really have nothing to do at all with conversion therapy.

Petitioners want to see the government have the humility to recognize when drafting errors have occurred and to try to build consensus by fixing the definition and then proceeding with a conversion therapy ban.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have four petitions to present to the House today.

The first petition is with respect to Bill C-6, which proposes to ban conversion therapy.

The petitioners are supportive of the general direction of the government with respect to banning conversion therapy, but they have concerns about the drafting of the bill, in particular the definition used of conversion therapy. The definition used in the bill is not consistent with most definitions of conversion therapy that have been used or understood at other levels and in other circumstances. They are concerned about how the flaws in the definition create unintended consequences.

The petitioners call on the government to fix the definition so we have a bill that in fact can command the full support of all members.

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

The next petition I have to present today, Madam Speaker, is from Canadians from across the country who are concerned about the definition of conversion therapy in Bill C-6. They are asking for the definition to be improved so that members of the LGBT community would continue to have support to be able to limit their sexual behaviour or detransition. They are therefore calling on the ban for conversion therapy and Bill C-6 to be amended to fix the definition.

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

Madam Speaker, I have five petitions to present this afternoon.

The first petition is with respect to Bill C-6. The petitioners are supportive of the principle of banning conversion therapy. They ask the House to fix the definition contained in the bill. They recognize that poor drafting and problems with the definition create significant unintended consequences, including limiting conversations that could happen, and the ability of people to receive certain kinds of counselling that would seek to help individuals who are trying to manage things like sexual addiction. The petitioners ask the government to address these drafting problems and to pass a better bill that bans conversion therapy.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Madam Speaker, finally, I am tabling a petition on behalf of Canadians who are asking that the definition in Bill C-6 be abandoned and fixed to ensure that parents can speak with their own children about sexuality and gender and set house rules about those kinds of relationships.

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

Madam Speaker, the second to last petition calls on the government to fix the definition in Bill C-6.

The final petition—

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

Madam Speaker, the final petition I am presenting today is a petition from Canadians from across Canada who are opposed to conversion therapy, but are concerned with the current definition of conversion therapy in Bill C-6. They want coercive and degrading therapies banned, but are concerned about the definition in Bill C-6. They also are concerned about private conversations that would be limited, and the chilling effect that Bill C-6 is having. They ask for a clear and fixed definition of conversion therapy.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Madam Speaker, I wish to table a petition from Canadians highlighting how Bill C-6 restricts the choices available to Canadians and the LGBTQ community.

The petitioners call upon the House of Commons to do five things: one, ban coercive, degrading practices that are designed to change a person's sexual orientation or gender identity; two, ensure that no laws discriminate against Canadians by limiting the services they can receive based on their sexual orientation or gender identity; three, allow parents to speak with their own children about sexuality and gender, and to set house rules about sex and relationships; four, allow free and open conversation about sexuality and sexual behaviour; and five, avoid criminalizing professional and religious counselling voluntarily requested and consented to by Canadians.

These issues were raised at the justice committee during its study on Bill C-6, and appeals were made to parliamentarians by witnesses to better define conversion therapy in the legislation. The goal is to ensure that no Canadians are restricted in terms of access to any professional or spiritual support that they have freely chosen.

All of us in the House should consider the concerns raised by these petitioners, and the bill should be amended accordingly.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to present a petition regarding Bill C-6. The petitioners have serious concerns about the consequences of the legislation, including limiting the options available for LGBT Canadians to receive counselling and the criminalization of conversations between children, their parents and other mentors about sexuality.

A recent Nanos poll has found that 91% of Canadians agree that consenting adults should be free to get the sexuality counselling of their choice regardless of their sexual orientation or gender identity. This is consistent across regions, age and gender. This is precisely what Bill C-6 would ban, counselling that Canadians may choose for themselves.

The petitioners want to see a conversion therapy ban but not this conversion therapy ban. Bill C-6 would ban more than conversion therapy. Let us fix the definition used in the bill so we can ban the harmful and degrading practices that have no place in Canada, while maintaining the supports available for LGBT Canadians.

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

Mr. Speaker, the fifth petition is from Canadians who are concerned about the current definition of “conversion therapy” in Bill C-6. The petitioners, like most Canadians, want coercive and degrading therapies banned. They are concerned that private conversations would be limited and ask the government to avoid criminalizing voluntary services, including professional and religious counselling. They ask for a clear and fixed definition of “conversion therapy”.

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

Mr. Speaker, the fifth petition deals with Bill C-6, the government's conversion therapy bill. Petitioners note that they are opposed to conversion therapy and would like to see legislation banning it. However, they note that the government's definition of conversion therapy in Bill C-6 is deeply flawed and has many unintended consequences.

Petitioners join the calls from many groups and Canadians for the government to address the drafting errors, fix the definition, make sure the bill actually only applies to conversion therapy itself and then proceed with banning conversation therapy once there is a fixed, clarified definition.

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

Madam Speaker, the fifth and final petition I am tabling today is about Bill C-6.

The petitioners agree with the objective of the bill to ban conversion therapy. However, they are very concerned with the incorrect definition used in it, which, inadvertently or not, would end up banning many conversations and discussions that really have nothing to do with conversion therapy as it has been classically defined. The petitioners call on the government to act to fix the definition and to proceed with banning conversion therapy once the definition is corrected.

I commend all five of these petitions to the consideration of hon. members.

Criminal Code

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am glad to be able to rise this evening to speak to these amendments from the Senate on the medical assistance in dying bill.

It is unfortunate that we have such a short amount of time to talk about these amendments, because this is quite literally a matter of life and death. I would think the government, on something as serious as this, would want to spend some time thinking about these changes, which are far outside the scope of the original bill.

Let me talk about the purpose of the Senate. The Senate was put in place at its inception as a mechanism to look at the legislation from the government of the day and decide whether it was good for Canada. If not, it was to provide fixes for it and send it back. Clearly, what has happened with Bill C-7 is far beyond that.

The unelected members of the Senate have come with items like MAID for people suffering only from mental illness, advance directives, and all kinds of things that were beyond the scope of what was presented. That is not its role, and the government, by accepting these things outside of its scope, is really putting ideas in the minds of the senators to encourage them to continue to do what is not their role.

Let us go through the amendments one at a time. The first one allows those with only mental illness to have access to MAID and says we will talk about it in a while: not in 18 months, but in 24 months. This is really unacceptable. After the first medical assistance in dying legislation was brought in, the Liberal government put together consultants and a panel from the Council of Canadian Academies. This was done by the honourable Jane Philpott and the hon. member for Vancouver Granville, to study whether people with mental illness only should have access to MAID.

That working group could not agree that this was a good thing to proceed with. It was quite concerned about whether people with mental illness really had the capability to give informed consent. It was concerned as well that we were going down the wrong path. Even the Netherlands, which has such a broad euthanasia range, only allows people with dementia to have medical assistance in dying, and there is still a ton of controversy with that. Even the Netherlands has not gone down this very dark path.

The Centre for Addiction and Mental Health issued a report to the government and said:

Canadians themselves are divided on the issue of MAiD, and most do not support making it available to those with only mental illness.

If the government is not going to listen to Canadians when they say this is not what they want, that is a concern.

These experts from CAMH also said:

The federal government should not make an amendment to MAiD legislation for people with mental illness as their sole underlying medical condition at this time due to a lack of evidence that mental illness is an irremediable medical condition in individual cases.

CAMH also expressed:

The concern is that many individuals with mental illness...[may have] impairments in [their] reasoning capacity that [would] make it difficult for them to connect their symptoms with their illness, fully understand the risks and benefits of treatment, and/or make...decisions based on personal goals and values.

With that, the Liberal government should be listening to Canadians who do not think this is a good idea, the mental health experts who do not think this is a good idea and the many people who are suffering from mental illness.

Not to be coarse, but the reality today is that people who only have mental illness as their condition can already commit suicide. In fact, sadly, thousands of Canadians are doing it, and thousands more are likely to do it as a result of the failure of the government to address the pandemic and restore the economy. People are losing their businesses and their livelihoods, and they have been under lockdown. This is a very serious condition.

A time when the government is talking about suicide prevention is no time to be saying, “Let us put extra help in here so people can have medical professionals assist them in their suicide efforts.” That is offensive at the very least.

The second amendment has to do with the review of the MAID regime. Absolutely, I see the government wants to have a review, but the fact is, there was a review in the first legislation, and the government did not do it. That was unacceptable and should have been addressed then. I do not think we need a new formula on how to do a review. I think we just need to do the review.

The third amendment is about collecting race-based data regarding MAID. I see in the discussion of this and it has been mentioned that we collect this kind of data on other things, such as palliative care. Well, palliative care, as members know because my private member's bill on palliative care was unanimously supported in the House, is a topic that is near and dear to my heart. In fact, the framework on palliative care to get consistent access for Canadians was begun because the data shows that where there is good quality palliative care, 95% of the people choose to live as well as they can for as long as they can.

However, sadly, this government has prioritized the killing of people through medical assistance in dying and de-emphasized palliative care. When we talk about people who, maybe due to their race and social standing, do not have good access to palliative care, we are talking about 60% of Canadians left without any access. That certainly should have been the priority for the government, instead of expanding the regime to help people end their lives.

I see that the clarification of neurocognitive disorder not being considered a mental illness was rejected as an amendment. The justice minister clarified in his testimony that the exclusion is not intended to capture neurocognitive disorders that are due to Alzheimer's or Parkinson's disease. Well, the justice minister has a habit of needing to clarifying things, because what is in the bills is never clear enough. We saw that in Bill C-6 where a clarification had to be put on the website about the definition. It was not in the bill, but it needed to be done because of the hurry with which these things are brought forward. I think that we need to take the time to get things right and not rush.

With respect to the advance request amendment, I would say that the same group that was put together to consult on this issue consulted on advance consent. The government already had this information, and it was not recommend that we go with advance consent. There were concerns about a few things.

First of all, who decides what is intolerable suffering when the person has lost capacity? When do we take action? How do we prove that it is informed consent? How do we make sure there is a third party responsible to enforce the decision if there is a disagreement after the person has lost capacity? These were the issues that had been brought forward, and they were ignored altogether in this discussion. I would add that Belgium and Luxembourg only allow advance consent when a person is permanently unconscious, and so that should be a consideration.

I would be remiss on the palliative care discussion if I did not do a plug for the Granfondo Cycle of Life fundraiser in my riding on April 9 at 7:30 p.m. Members can get details from my web page.

The other topic of discussion is about the work that needs to be done to actually make sure there are alternatives. We talked about the need for mental health supports and the need for palliative care. These are important considerations.

In short, I feel that the Senate overstepped its bounds with the amendments that it brought. I feel that the government should have appealed to the Supreme Court with the Quebec decision in the first place. Certainly, the government should not be expanding the scope of medical assistance in dying without doing its due diligence on the review that was originally desired, and spend more time listening to what Canadians want and what the people who are going to be impacted are feeling.

With that, it is clear that I will be voting against these amendments, as well as the medical assistance in dying legislation that has been brought forward.

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

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

I too want to thank the minister for being here today. I also want to thank him for maintaining open communication with me as long as he has been minister, both through his office and also through the parliamentary secretary.

There are a lot of things I'd like to ask about the budget, but since officials will be here for the second half and the minister won't, I'm going to focus on two bills to start with.

The minister will not be surprised that the first thing I'm going to ask about is Bill C-6, the ban on conversion therapy. I'm not going to ask him again—I've asked him personally and publicly—when this bill is going to get to the House so we can actually vote on it. I'm going to ask him a different question about it.

When we pass Bill C-6, as I'm sure we will, there are things that will need to happen as a follow-up to that. One of those is support for victims of previous conversion therapy. Another is efforts to work on the prevention of conversion therapy, rather than just leaving it as a matter for criminal law. I suspect those aren't going to be the responsibilities of the Ministry of Justice, but if they are not, how is that being communicated to other ministers? Have there been requests for them to start preparing programs that will help implement the ban on conversion therapy?

Conversion Therapy

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

Madam Speaker, the second petition deals with Bill C-6, the government's conversion therapy bill. The petitioners note they are very strongly opposed to allowing conversion therapy and support a ban on conversion therapy. They also have concerns about the definition of “conversion therapy” that is used in Bill C-6. Due to serious drafting problems, this bill could end up banning private conversations that would take place between individuals and create other kinds of problems.

The petitioners call on the government to ban coercive and degrading practices that are designed to change a person's sexual orientation or gender identity, amend Bill C-6 to fix the definition and allow parents to speak with their own children about sexuality and gender, and to set house rules about sex and relationships.

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

Madam Speaker, the fourth petition raises concerns about the definition of conversion therapy used in Bill C-6. The petitioners call on the government to fix the definition and then to ban conversion therapy, using a correct definition.

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

Madam Speaker, it is my honour to present two petitions on behalf of Canadians today.

The first petition I will be presenting is related to Bill C-6, the government's poorly crafted conversion therapy ban. We, here in Parliament, and the overwhelming majority of Canadians want to pass legislation that criminalizes, in an explicit manner, coercive counselling practices. However, in an unfortunate and ironic twist, Bill C-6 conflates harmful methodologies with the goals Canadians choose for themselves.

The petitioners are concerned that if Bill C-6 passes, heterosexuals will be able to get support to reduce unwanted sexual addictions or porn addictions, whereas LGBTQ Canadians will not.

With this bill's passing, only in Canada will consenting adults not be able to pay for a professional counsellor. Mature minors would have no choice at all. In fact, this bill says that only the counselling sessions of LGBTQ Canadians will be regulated by criminal law.

These petitioners recognize that although they support a conversion therapy ban, they do not support this conversion therapy ban, because Bill C-6 bans far more than conversion therapy. The definition used in Bill C-6 would needlessly criminalize normal conversations between children and parents, and other mentors in their lives, about sexuality. It would limit the types of supports that available for LGBTQ Canadians.

It is not the government's place to determine the outcomes that a person desire for themself when they undergo counselling. Bill C-6 would ban outcomes that patients desire, not just harmful methodologies.

The petitioners have a specific ask in regards to the definition of conversion therapy. The definition in the bill is not used by any professional body in North America. This petition is a call for a simple fix. The petitioners are calling for the definition to be fixed so that the bill will actually tackle what we all want to do: to ban violent and coercion counselling.

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

Mr. Speaker, the government is dragging its feet on banning conversion therapy. The justice committee completed its study of Bill C-6 last December, yet we still have not seen it come back to the House for a final debate and vote.

While I am confident a ban on conversion therapy will eventually pass, this will be only the first step. We heard clearly that there needs to be systematic support for survivors of conversion therapy and support for those who are still faced with misguided and harmful attempts to get them to change their sexual orientation, gender identity or expression.

One tool the federal government should use to combat these homophobic and transphobic attitudes is to set public health standards for comprehensive sex education, sex education which, at its core, affirms and celebrates the sexual orientation, gender identity and gender expression of all Canadians.

If we adopt standards for sex education that are affirming, comprehensive and in accord with our international human rights obligations, then we have a chance to stamp out not only conversion therapy but also the attitudes that cause it.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions to present today.

The first is in regard to Bill C-6. The petitioners indicate that the definition of conversion therapy is far too broad and it wrongly applies a label to a range of practices, including counselling from parents, teachers and counsellors encouraging children to reduce sexual behaviour. It allows counselling medical and surgical efforts to change a child's gender, but prohibits for a child seeking to detransition to his or her birth gender. This is a growing issue.

The petitioners call on the House of Commons to take the following actions to address the situation: ban coercive, degrading practices that are designed to change a person's sexual orientation or gender identity; ensure that no law discriminates against Canadians by limiting the services they can receive based on their sexual orientation or gender identity; allow parents to speak with their own children about sexuality and gender and to set house rules about sex and relationships as parents; allow free and open conversations about sexuality and sexual behaviour; and finally, avoid criminalizing professionals and religious counselling voluntarily requested and consented to by Canadians.

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

Madam Speaker, the petition I am presenting today is on behalf of individuals who are concerned about the legislation before the House on conversion therapy, Bill C-6.

The petitioners are concerned that conversion therapy has historically referred to coercive, degrading actions that seek to change a person's sexual orientation or gender identity, which are wrong and should be banned; however, Bill C-6 defines conversion therapy as:

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

The petitioners indicate that this broad definition wrongly applies the label “conversion therapy” to a broad range of practices, including counsel from parents, teachers and councillors encouraging children to reduce sexual behaviour in general.

The petitioners call upon the House of Commons to take the following actions to address this situation: ban coercive, degrading practices that are designed to change a person's sexual orientation or gender identity; ensure that no law discriminates against Canadians by limiting the services they can receive based on sexual orientation or gender identity; allow parents to speak with their own children about sexuality and gender, and to set out house rules about sex and relationships; to allow free and open conversations about sexuality and sexual behaviour; and finally, to avoid criminalizing professional and religious counselling voluntarily requested and consented to by Canadians.

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

Madam Speaker, the second petition is with respect to Bill C-6. The petitioners want to express that they support efforts to ban conversion therapy. They are, however, concerned by the definition of conversion therapy that is used by the bill. They note that certain drafting problems in the bill in fact define as conversion therapy things that have never been called conversion therapy and do not align with any existing definition of it. The petitioners call on the House to ban coercive, degrading practices that are designed to change a person's sexual orientation or gender identity, and to amend Bill C-6 to fix the definition of conversion therapy, thus banning conversion therapy without banning voluntary counselling or criminalizing conversations, and to allow parents to speak with their own children about sexuality and gender and to set house rules about sex and relationships.

Justice

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

Madam Speaker, the government likes to talk about its commitment to equal rights based on sexual orientation and gender identity, but often seems to confuse action with surveys and press conferences.

Last fall, the justice committee heard moving and compelling testimony on the urgent need to bring an end to conversion therapy in Canada. The committee worked hard to bring Bill C-6 back to the House promptly, but since it was reported back last December the government seems to have forgotten all about conversion therapy.

When is the government going to bring Bill C-6 back for final debate and a vote so we can finally put an end to conversion therapy in Canada?

Conversion Therapy

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

Mr. Speaker, today I am honoured to stand before you to shed some positive light during these challenging times from my riding of Kingston and the Islands. I am proud to inform the House that Kingston City Council voted unanimously at its last council meeting to pass a motion banning the practice of conversion therapy, making Kingston the first city in Ontario to ban conversion therapy practices.

Conversion therapy is a harmful practice that targets vulnerable LGBTQ2+ Canadians, which can lead to lifelong trauma. I am glad to hear that Kingston as a community has stepped up to ban these practices. I especially want to thank Councillor Bridget Doherty and Mayor Bryan Paterson for bringing this motion forward and indeed all the city councillors for taking this position.

I look forward to working hard with my colleagues in the House at the federal level to ensure Bill C-6 gets passed as law and conversion therapy is banned right across Canada.

Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights

[Iqra Khalid, Liberal, Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON]

Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the fourth report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights in relation to Bill C-6, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (conversion therapy).

The committee has studied the bill and has decided to report the bill back to the House with amendments.

I would also like to take this opportunity to wish everyone a very merry Christmas, happy Hanukkah, happy holidays and a hope-filled new year.

[The Chair, Liberal, Iqra Khalid]

With that, having gone through all of Bill C-6 clause by clause, thank you, members, for a wonderful session. Thank you for all your hard work, your passion and your dedication.

A special thank you goes to all of our support teams, the interpretation, the analysts and the IT teams. You guys have really kept us afloat. Our clerk and our legislative clerks—thank you all.

I wish you all a merry Christmas, happy Hanukkah, happy holidays and all the best in the new year.

The meeting is adjourned.

[The Chair, Liberal, Iqra Khalid]

Shall the title carry?

(Title agreed to on division)

Shall the bill as amended carry?

I see that members would like a recorded vote.

(Bill C-6 as amended agreed to: yeas 7; nays 0)

Shall I report the bill as amended to the House?

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I want to speak in favour of this amendment. We heard a lot of testimony and we've had submissions—a few I've been able to read at least—before this committee speaking to the need for some comfort around understanding just what is captured in these amendments to the Criminal Code of Canada that bear criminal sanction along with them.

We've heard a lot of people here today—witnesses from the Department of Justice, as well as members of the committee—speak to what a judge does and doesn't do in interpreting a statute. I've never been appointed as a judge, but I was an administrative law judge for five years on the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal. In that capacity, knowing that my decisions were appealable to the courts—and they were appealed, in fact, in some instances—I was always very mindful, in taking in evidence, of what I was and was not able to look at.

In administrative law, you actually can take into account and weigh evidence in a bit broader context than perhaps you can in a regular court of law, certainly a criminal court of law. Lists are very helpful for a judge in interpreting. They need not be exhaustive. That's why you see language, as in this amendment, saying “such as”. It's not meant to be an exhaustive list.

I heard the minister, and I believe Mr. Virani and others, say that lists aren't very good. Lists are helpful, in fact. Lists are helpful in interpretation. We've heard a lot of testimony here today about how intention is something that judges do look at in deciding these cases.

We've heard a lot about how it's on the website or someone can look it up on the website. As far as I know, websites are not considered authoritative in courts of law. I've never actually heard of a judge referring to a website in interpreting. That's not where you go.

Occasionally, I have seen decisions where a judge has looked to statements of a minister in and around the passing of legislation. Again, however, it's not authoritative. Why? Ministers come and go—with all due respect to those who hold those offices. When we're dealing with putting forward legislation, particularly that which carries with it criminal sanction, it is essential that the wording be specific enough and clearly understood enough that any future minister and any future judge, given the task to interpret that legislation or rely on the legislation, know what it is they're looking at and relying on.

Frankly, I don't understand why the government is not open to clarifying this legislation, the broad intent of which is clear, but the specifics are lacking in terms of definitions and language. That would give comfort to those who are not seeking to do anything coercive, but who are seeking only to help and support.

We've heard testimony from witnesses over the course of the discussion on Bill C-6 who said that this kind of counselling—whether it be from faith leaders or from people in the general counselling fields—was very helpful to them in just trying to get to where they needed to get in terms of their gender identity and/or gender expression. I would hate to see a situation where we pass legislation with criminal sanction attached to it that would put a chill on the kinds of supports and the kinds of taking of confidences that are necessary to help people as they struggle with the issues we're dealing with here.

My colleague Mr. Maloney spoke of the cardinal. He has a different interpretation than the cardinal, who said he spoke for literally millions of Catholics in the GTA, as to what is meant here. It seems to me that when we have a witness—and I will say that I am not Catholic—whose judgment, guidance and counsel are sought by literally millions of Canadians, we should be cautious and we should take into account that further definition and further help in interpretation—for future judicial comment and future judicial decisions—is the way we should go. We should not preclude people who are seeking our help from understanding this legislation.

Let's just take faith leaders for a moment. We've heard from faith leaders and have had submissions from faith leaders of almost every faith I can think of who have said they're against coercive conversion therapy and against the idea of trying to force anyone one way or the other, but that they need clarity. They need to understand that the conversations they may have that are supporting someone's own journey—supporting someone who, for any number of reasons, may need clarification within their own minds and within their own spirits in terms of where they're going in their life—would not be somehow shut down.

I'm asking people to really think on this. This is not in any way trying to derail the overall intent of this bill. It's not meant in any way to restrict the overall intent. What it's trying to do is give a level of comfort to those who find themselves in these very sensitive conversations—usually confidential conversations that they have in the course of their chosen field, be it professional or faith, or even in terms of family or friendship—that those will not be restricted in what I believe would be an unintended way.

Let's be clear. In this amendment, we've taken the wording directly from the government's own website. I have to assume that the government of the day believes in this wording, or they wouldn't have put it up on their website. As I said, a judge interpreting this in the future, or the ordinary Canadian public trying to understand what is permissible and what is not, is not going to go to a website. They are going to look at the legislation.

That's our job here today, and I hope that we will fulfill it by allowing this amendment to go through, which in no way subverts the overall intent of this bill.

Thank you.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I have to comment on one thing. Mr. Maloney said that I inferred that something was “sinister”. I guess those are his words, not mine. I did not say that anything Mr. Virani did was sinister, and I don't think it is.

What I'm saying is out of respect for everybody. The government knew last night that this amendment was going to be table-dropped, because they included a change to the preamble. That was at 4:30, so there is no doubt.... I don't think anyone could argue—I hope—with the fact that we are dealing with something that has been table-dropped. It is completely unfair to your colleagues to expect us to be ready on the spot to deal with what has been table-dropped. This is why we have deadlines for submitting amendments to legislation.

That was his language; it's certainly not mine. I think there is absolutely no doubt, however, that what the government has done here today has caused a lot of problems with our ability to do clause-by-clause. There's no doubt about that, because members did not have the benefit of having this even one day in advance, let alone a few days in advance, as we had agreed to.

I think it's very clear that the government has now table-dropped an amendment to this legislation that, in the department's own words, greatly broadens the definition, because “gender expression” is a broad term. It is also, on the departmental expert testimony, an undefined term in the Criminal Code. We have a term that's undefined in the Criminal Code and that broadens the definition.

Not to belabour it, but there was reference to the charter statement on this legislation. The charter statement that I saw was based on Bill C-6 as presented by the minister to our committee. The new change that the government has table-dropped is an expansion of Bill C-6, and if there has been an updated charter statement, I haven't had the benefit of seeing it. It could be that it's on the departmental website; I don't know.

My question to the department is this. We've seen the charter statement—and the minister spoke to this in his testimony—on what was Bill C-6, the original version. Is there an updated charter statement with this amendment?

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Our colleague Mr. Virani's comment about the trivial or insignificant nature of my example seems a little strange to me. I don't feel that the example I gave is insignificant. If Mr. Virani takes a little time to read law reports, he may find that many things he feels are trivial have nevertheless caught the courts' attention, sometimes as far as the Supreme Court. My remarks were not insignificant, and neither were his. His proposed amendment is far from insignificant. It's important, and I believe it's also worthy of discussion.

I would like to go back to the answer provided to me by Department of Justice senior counsel Ms. Levman, because I take issue with it. I know that a parent's intervention is not a treatment, a psychotherapy service or anything like that; we can agree on that. I do, however, believe it could be considered a practice. If Ms. Levman feels it's clearly not a practice, I'd like her to explain the distinction she makes between “practice”, “treatment” and “service”. One of the principles for interpreting statutes is that the legislator does not speak in vain. In my view, we need to find different definitions for “practice”, “treatment” and “service”.

According to my humble interpretation, which may differ from Mr. Virani's, but which I do not find insignificant, it could easily be argued that it is a practice when a parent, guardian or even a neighbour tells a little boy play to wear pants or, conversely, tells a little girl to wear a dress.

I remind you that the Department of Justice's definition does not refer only to clothing. I had stopped quoting at that point, but to support the argument, perhaps I should repeat that definition. It says that a person's gender expression includes “such aspects as dress, hair, make-up, body language, and voice.” So, many things are included in gender expression. Gender, as understand it, includes quite a few behaviours.

I confess that, as a parent, I have told my daughter that she should not wear so much make-up. From what I understand, by engaging in that practice—and I do feel it can be considered a practice—I would have committed a criminal offence. I'm sure no one wants that.

I am not naive or stupid. I am concerned by the fact that we are drafting provisions of law that can lead to extreme interpretations of that kind, which we do not want when we try to interpret them. I am sure the Minister of Justice doesn't want that, nor do my Liberal, Conservative and other colleagues.

Since we began our work, I have been thinking that clause 5 of Bill C-6, which introduces section 320.101 of the Criminal Code, obviously needs to be rewritten, because it contains the most ambiguous definition ever on such an important subject, and that deserves more attention.

To sum up, I would like someone to explain the distinction being made between a practice, a treatment and a service. Could intervention by someone who is not a professional be considered a practice? We don't mention health professionals anywhere, we keep it in general terms. I know that, for a treatment or service, it has to be a professional, such as a psychologist or physician. However, anyone can engage in the practice of telling a young man that he should not use make-up or wear dresses, or of telling an eight-year-old girl that it's not appropriate to wear so much make-up and that she should wear sneakers to school instead of three-inch heels, for example. These are things that teachers, parents, guardians or friends might say to a young person, and some could interpret them to be a practice prohibited under the Criminal Code. So it would be a criminal offence, which I remind you is a very serious thing.

Thank you.

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

Yes, Madam Chair, and thank you to Mr. Garrison.

The lines that are in question in Bill C-6 relate to clause 5, lines 30 to 32. I think there's a meeting of the minds here between ourselves and the NDP with respect to the importance of emphasizing the need to protect not only sexual orientation and gender identity, but also gender expression.

The language we would be proposing by way of either a new amendment or an amendment to what Mr. Garrison is suggesting is simply to insert “gender expression” into lines 32 and 33.

I can read it to you. In what we have in front of us, lines 32-33 currently read, “gender identity to cisgender, or to repress or reduce non-heterosexual attraction or sexual behaviour.” That is followed by the two words “For greater”. The idea would be to insert “gender expression” into those two lines, so it would now read, “gender identity or gender expression to cisgender, or to repress or reduce non-cisgender gender expression, or non-heterosexual attraction or sexual behaviour. For greater”.

The insertion is basically a total of eight words. The words “or gender expression” would be inserted, and the words “non-cisgender gender expression, or” would be inserted as well.

That is to address what we heard in testimony, what we've heard from stakeholders and what we've read in written briefs, to ensure that this bill is as comprehensive as possible. It also tracks with other instruments, including human rights legislation and so on, in terms of its language and verbiage, that we have not only reference to sexual orientation and gender identity, which is currently in the bill, but also reference to gender expression.

I think that is where we have an understanding with the NDP with respect to the necessity of that type of change, so I would move that this language be used in lines 32 to 33 on page 4, in clause 5.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

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

The motion will read as follows:

That clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-6 be postponed to a subsequent meeting, when work resumes in January 2021.

[The Chair, Liberal, Iqra Khalid]

You're absolutely right, Mr. Moore. I think our translation services and all at the Library of Parliament have done a phenomenal job in getting the translation for that high number of briefs, not only for Bill C-6 but also for past legislation. We're really, really blessed to have them support us in our endeavour.

Monsieur Fortin, I have you next, and I'm hoping that you have the exact wording of the motion that you'd like to propose.

[The Chair, Liberal, Iqra Khalid]

Okay, wonderful.

Thank you, everybody, for your co-operation.

I will now go into clause-by-clause for Bill C-6, pursuant to the order of reference made on Wednesday, October 28. I would like to—

[The Chair, Liberal, Iqra Khalid]

Thank you, Mr. Fortin.

I hope that clarifies it.

I thought I saw a couple of hands up, but I think they've gone down now.

Mr. Moore, is your hand raised for the operational budget for Bill C-6?

[The Clerk of the Committee, Mr. Marc-Olivier Girard]

Thank you for your question, Mr. Fortin.

I believe we may be mixing this budget up with another one that actually was passed two weeks ago. It was to study Bill C-7, while this one is to study Bill C-6.

[The Chair, Liberal, Iqra Khalid]

Good morning, everyone. Welcome to the last meeting of the year, maybe, for our justice committee.

I call this meeting to order.

Just before we get into clause-by-clause today.... All of the members have been emailed an operational budget for Bill C-6. I would like to get that approved by your consent so that we can get into clause-by-clause.

Are there any questions or clarifications with regard to the operational budget that was emailed to you?

Conversion Therapy

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

Mr. Speaker, the second petition I am presenting addresses Bill C-6 or what was Bill C-8 before the Prime Minister prorogued Parliament to cover up the WE scandal.

The petitioners recognize that in Bill C-6 conversion therapy is vaguely defined and overreaches established safeguarding principles by criminalizing therapies offered by medical professionals and normal conversations between children and parents, counsellors, caregivers and educators.

The petition, which received 1,293 signatures, calls on the House to address that issue by fixing the definition and asks that the government complete and make public a gender-based analysis of the impact of the legislation that it could have on women, children, professionals and families in health education and caregiver roles.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this petition is supported by the majority of the 91 churches in my riding.

The undersigned citizens are extremely concerned about Bill C-6, about the attack on their freedom of religion, conscience, expression, belief and their ability to speak it in the public square. While all Canadians agree that no one should have to forcibly undergo a treatment they do not want, Bill C-6 prevents people who, of their own free will, want counselling, advice or prayer about their sexual confusion.

The petitioners call upon the Government of Canada for a narrower definition of what the Liberals view as conversion therapy in order to exclude pastoral care, voluntarily sought counselling or prayer, to amend or withdraw this legislation and to preserve their charter rights.

[The Clerk of the Committee, Mr. Marc-Olivier Girard]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

I just want to inform the committee that it has received nearly 300 submissions on Bill C-6. That's a huge number. About 260 submissions are currently being translated.

I would like to thank the committees directorate's administrative team that is handling the processing of all those submissions, especially committee assistant, Natasha Filoso-Timpson, who worked all of last weekend. I would also like to thank the Translation Bureau's entire team that, despite being very busy these days, has been working very hard to translate all those submissions.

The vast majority of submissions should be ready in time for the clause-by-clause study of the bill, but some 30 briefs will be sent after December 10.

Once again, I thank everyone for their tremendous efforts.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I thank all the witnesses who are with us. Their participation in this debate is valuable.

As I was saying previously, we feel that, the more people we hear talk about Bill C-6, the more we realize that the situation is confusing. I think that all the parliamentarians who have worked on this bill are acting in good faith and want to ban practices we all consider dishonourable.

I sort of agree with what Cardinal Collins was saying earlier that this is unfortunately the text that will have to be the legal support for those bans, but I unfortunately find it confusing.

That said, I personally feel that good faith conversations should be allowed, but I am wondering what would constitute a good faith conversation. Couldn't that conversation “in good faith” from one individual's point of view appear to be “in bad faith” from another point of view? What I mean by that is that religious and moral beliefs vary from one individual to another and from one religion to another.

Cardinal Collins, how would you view a question from a citizen who came to see you—for example a 13 or 14-year-old adolescent—and was questioning their gender identity and saying that they think they are bisexual, that they are sexually attracted to young women or young men and that they find that okay. What would be your opinion on that kind of a statement, Cardinal Collins?

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

Thank you.

Mr. Santoro, about the broadness of the definition of conversion therapy and C-6 as it is now, do you believe because of how the bill is written now that it could be struck down?

[His Eminence Cardinal Thomas Collins, Archbishop, Archdiocese of Toronto]

Thank you very much.

Good afternoon and thank you for providing me with the opportunity to speak with you about Bill C-6. I am grateful for the work of the justice and human rights committee and for all that you do to serve our country in your role as elected members of Parliament.

As the Archbishop of Toronto, I serve as the spiritual leader of two million Catholics in the greater Toronto area. At the outset, I should clearly state that the Catholic Church opposes any coercive practices that undermine a person's free will and human dignity. We believe that every person is a gift from God to be treated with love, compassion and respect. In a society where mutual respect and love of neighbour should define us in all that we do, we must all ensure that no one experiences coercion or manipulation. I'm most appreciative of Minister Chagger's insistence that we act against coercive practices.

I am deeply concerned, however, that the current definition of conversion therapy found in Bill C-6 goes much further than the stated goal of criminalizing coercive behaviour. In this bill, there is no requirement that the practice, treatment or service in question be coercive or cause harm. The bill fails to define exactly what constitutes a practice, treatment or service. Actions that are now lawful could be subject to the Criminal Code.

In its current form the legislation lacks protection in relation to the following: the fundamental right of parents as first educators and guardians to make decisions regarding the welfare of their children, specifically their freedom to instruct them in accord with their religious and ethical beliefs; the right and freedom of every Canadian to voluntarily seek support to live in a manner consistent with their identity and beliefs, and in accord with their personal convictions; the right and freedom of the church and other religious communities to support persons who choose to live their lives and sexuality in accord with moral teachings and the dictates of conscience; and the right and freedom of the church and other religious communities to share their religious and ethical beliefs regarding the human person and human sexuality.

Now some within the government have said that clearly this bill is not intended to criminalize some of the points that I have just mentioned. Be that as it may, no such protection is actually present in the text of the legislation and it is the text that will become law.

If I may cite an example, when the euthanasia law was passed in 2016, we were assured that the language in the preamble would be sufficient to protect conscience rights for those not wishing to participate in the act of taking a patient's life. That has turned out not to be true.

Any law concerning conversion therapy must strike a careful balance. On the one hand, the law must recognize that coercive and harmful practices have no place in our social order. On the other hand, the law must not criminalize the charter-protected beliefs of Canadian people. While these beliefs may not find popular acclaim and may even be offensive to some, the fact remains that many people freely choose to live their lives in accordance with traditional principles and beliefs. Tolerance and diversity are a two-way street. Educators, counsellors, parents and pastoral leaders should be allowed to express their views freely and without fear of punishment. This is certainly true when it comes to faith communities because in practice in our society they are now and always have been at the forefront in caring for the most vulnerable.

I hope that this committee will seriously reflect on these concerns and amend Bill C-6 to criminalize conversion therapy in a more careful and accurate manner. While we must address the suffering caused by any harmful coercive practices to ensure they are no longer present in our country, at the same time we must permit respectful dialogue and expression of diverse views in a way that supports deeply enshrined principles in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It is the coercive and harmful element that we must focus on and not be too broad in the definition.

I thank you for the opportunity to share my comments with you this afternoon.

[Rabbi Michael Whitman, As an Individual]

Madam Chair, members of the committee, I am honoured to appear before you today to speak in support of Bill C-6.

My name is Michael Whitman. I am the senior rabbi of ADATH Congregation in Hampstead, Quebec, a modern-orthodox Jewish synagogue. I am a sessional instructor at McGill University Faculty of Law. I am involved in many communal efforts in Montreal and across Canada and have been engaged in providing pastoral counselling throughout my career of 37 years and counting.

My involvement in this specific issue began in 2012 when I read that the renowned psychiatrist Dr. Robert Spitzer, who years earlier had written a seminal paper that was used to support conversion therapy, recanted that research and wrote, “I owe the gay community an apology.”

After learning about the destructive effects of conversion therapy and hearing first-hand the harm of its effects, I would rephrase the now widespread sentiment against conversion therapy, paraphrasing the Bible: “We are ashamed of what we did to our brothers and sisters. We saw them suffering when they cried out to us, but we did not listen to them.” Today I ask that you do listen to them and take action to prevent this particular cry from ever being repeated in Canada.

For me, this is a straightforward issue of human rights. I find the earliest expression of human rights near the beginning of the Bible: that every human being is created B'Tzelem Elokim—in the image of God, cherished by God, deserving of respect and dignity. Our rabbis in the Talmud expanded this into the wide-reaching rubric of Kavod HaBriyot—the innate right of human dignity, that we are prohibited to embarrass, humiliate or debase anyone.

About five years ago, I was appointed the annual convention chair of the RCA, the Rabbinical Council of America, the largest professional organization of Orthodox rabbis. My committee and I had the responsibility to program instruction and resources for rabbis across North America and the world to assist them in leading their congregations. The theme we chose was “caring for LGBT Individuals and their families”. Our goal was to listen to these individuals and the helping professionals who support them. I am proud that the RCA gave prime time to a subject that enables all rabbis to do our jobs better.

It's central to my mission as a rabbi and my identity as a Jew to make every human being feel welcome and respected. Conversion therapy does just the opposite. It is inherently belittling and dismissive. It demands that people live inauthentically, untrue to themselves, and requires a harsh cure where there is no disease. Its methods are often humiliating and traumatizing. There is no place for it in Canadian society.

I remember hearing a radio interview. Dr. Spitzer was asked how he felt, after writing his retraction at the age of 80, that his entire life's work and reputation would be tainted by this one research paper. I remember that he said, “I feel very bad, of course, for the hurt I have caused, but at the same time, when I realized I was wrong, I retracted it. I said it was wrong and I apologized to those I had hurt.” Not many people do that, and it is something to be proud of.

Conversion therapy has continued in Canada for far too long. It is wrong, and I ask you to do something about it. That will be something you will be proud of.

Thank you very much.

[Daniel Santoro, Barrister and Solicitor, As an Individual]

Good afternoon.

I am a lawyer in Toronto, Ontario, with extensive experience conducting complex criminal trials and appeals for all manner of offences. Thank you for providing me with the opportunity to testify respecting this proposed conversion therapy offence.

There are three main problems with this legislation as currently drafted. I will suggest solutions to all these problems that I think are simple and consistent with a lot of the evidence you've heard.

The first problem is that the definition of conversion therapy is overly broad and imprecise. It's likely to capture situations that are not actual conversion therapy and cause confusion. The second problem is that the existing exception for medical treatment is too narrow, because it specifies only one lawful form of treatment: gender transition. The third and final problem is that the exception allowing exploration of identity is unclear and does not adequately protect charter freedoms.

On the first problem, that the definition of conversion therapy is overly broad and imprecise, multiple provinces have, or are considering, conversion therapy legislation. In all cases, this legislation is passed pursuant to the provincial power to regulate health care. In order for this bill, Bill C-6, to be a valid exercise of the federal criminal law power, it must have a criminal public purpose, which means some specific public evil that is targeted. In this case, I think everyone can agree that the target is coercive and harmful practices that are designed to change a person's sexual orientation or gender identity.

The bill defines conversion therapy as the following:

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.

There are many difficult-to-define and undefined terms and words in this definition, and there are many difficult concepts that will be very difficult for criminal courts to nail down. This will prove to be a very difficult definition to interpret for the many, many reasons you've heard from different witnesses.

Realistic situations will arise that may be captured by this definition. For example, we have already heard mention of whether a therapist will be allowed to assist an adult person who wants to go through a detransitioning process, or whether a youth who is experiencing gender confusion will be able to access any therapy that would be affirming of their birth gender. There are many other situations as well. The difficulty is that if this definition is not properly tailored, it will be seen perhaps to not only be unconstitutional, because it regulates “criminal” in the field of health care, but to also be overbroad and contrary to section 7 of the charter.

My first suggestion is very simple. You need to restrict the definition to “a coercive practice”. I suggest that the definition should read, “Conversion therapy is a coercive practice.” This is a clear definition of a criminal public purpose. “Coercive” is a well-known term in the Criminal Code. It comes up in other sections. You can also consider whether you want to add the requirement that conversion therapy “causes harm”, whether that be bodily or psychological harm. Those are also well-defined concepts in the Criminal Code.

The other problem with this definition is mainly in the last part. If we define conversion therapy as “a coercive practice designed to change sexual orientation or gender identity” and remove all the extraneous language with relation to specifying “sexual orientation to heterosexual or gender identity to cisgender, or to repress or reduce" attraction or behaviour, we can be very much more simple in our definition here by saying, “Conversion therapy is a coercive practice designed to change sexual orientation or gender identity.” You can remove the rest of the language.

The second problem is with the medical treatment exception. It specifies only one sort of medical treatment that's allowed, and that's gender transition. Other medical exceptions in the Criminal Code, in order to avoid delving into the provincial regulation of health care, set out objective criteria according to which a judge or a person can understand whether what they're doing is allowed. In the euthanasia provisions and in other provisions in the Criminal Code when medical treatment is discussed, the exception is phrased that any treatment is allowed if exercised with “reasonable knowledge, care and skill". It does not specify one particular form of treatment that is allowed to the exclusion of all other forms of treatment.

Not only is that not allowed and unconstitutional because it would be regulating health care; it would be arbitrary and overbroad, because it captures situations such as treatments that doctors such as Dr. Dobson or some of her colleagues might suggest aren't gender transition. What you need to do is employ objective language.

The third issue has to do with the—

[Dr. Jane Dobson, As an Individual]

Thank you, members of Parliament, for this chance to speak with you. I am here as a concerned family physician.

I want you to picture a young teenage girl who starts to question her gender identity. As you may know, questioning and exploring identity is a key part of adolescent development. She is referred to a gender clinic by her family doctor. Instead of having her anxiety and depressive symptoms treated, she is fast-tracked onto puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones, and at age 20 she has both breasts removed.

At age 23 she regrets her hasty decision and begins to detransition. She is left with a permanent five o'clock shadow, a permanently low voice and no breasts. Now she wonders how all this happened to her, simply because she questioned her gender identity. She says, “I made a brash decision as a teenager, as a lot of teenagers do, trying to find confidence and happiness, except now the rest of my life will be negatively affected. I feel I was a guinea pig.”

This is not an imaginary person. This is Keira Bell, the young woman who successfully sued England's Tavistock gender clinic. As a result, the British High Court has now ruled that children must understand the immediate and long-term consequences of taking puberty blockers to be able to consent. The court's permission is now needed to start anyone under 16 on puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones.

I wish I could share specific stories from my and my colleagues' medical practices, but of course I cannot.

Are adolescents being fast-tracked onto this biomedical regime here in Ontario? Yes. Why are their concomitant psychiatric diagnoses not being treated first? The therapist will be accused of conversion therapy.

In Ontario, since Bill 77 was passed in 2015, the psychotherapy-first approach has been stigmatized as conversion therapy. This psychotherapeutic approach has a proven positive track record.

Prior to 2015, when a gender-confused child received this treatment, they would be helped and encouraged to identify with their natal gender and be allowed to go through puberty unobstructed. Studies show that 80% to 88% of these children identified with their natal gender by adolescence. They accepted their biological body as their own.

Now, however, only one approach is offered, gender affirmation. Only one narrative is spoken, that gender identity is immutable.

What happens to young children who receive the gender affirmation approach? They are first socially transitioned, given new names, pronouns and new clothes. When they show early signs of puberty, they are placed on puberty blockers, which can cause brittle bones and may arrest natural brain development. Then they're placed on cross-sex hormones, which can increase anger and aggression, acne and hair loss, cause liver dysfunction, increase the risk of heart attacks and strokes, diabetes and blood clots, and cause sterility and sexual dysfunction. If they have further surgeries, they may well experience urinary incontinence.

One might well ask: How can a young child, a five-year-old, legally consent to this? The developmental stage of a five-year-old is still in concrete thinking. They can have no idea what could have happened if they had been offered the psychotherapeutic approach. They also can have no ability to understand what the future risks of this biomedical approach will entail.

My question is: Why is the government telling people what sexual or gender goals they should have? They are effectively doing this with Bill C-6, as the bill broadens the definition of conversion therapy from abusive and coercive therapeutic practices to also include talk therapy, watchful waiting, interpersonal conversations and spiritual practices, widening the net to now potentially criminalize parents, spiritual leaders and medical professionals for simply practising tested and tried therapy to help an individual reach their self-directed goals.

Further, it shouldn't be the government that decides what theories and therapies win out but the scientific community itself as it debates, studies, revises theories and moves forward.

What we should be asking is why referrals to gender clinics are soaring by as much as 1,000%, especially in adolescent natal females; why concomitant psychiatric diagnoses are so high, diagnoses that often predate the gender dysphoria; and why there are a growing number of detransitioners. Instead, Canada is seeking to stifle these questions by criminalizing proven therapy and allowing only one viewpoint to be heard.

Sweden is in the midst of a major review of their gender clinics. Finland has gone through their review, and now they require that psychiatric comorbidities be treated before medical transition is considered.

Instead of following the examples of England, Sweden and Finland, we are going in the absolute wrong direction. Will it take a lawsuit to change our direction? How many Keira Bells need to happen here in Canada before we change our approach and before we truly respect the rights of all Canadians?

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Iqra Khalid]

I call this meeting back to order.

We are studying Bill C-6. We welcome our guests and witnesses for the second panel.

Just before we go into that, I'll remind our witnesses and members that when you are speaking, please speak slowly and clearly with your microphone unmuted. When you are not speaking, please have your microphone on mute so as not to disrupt other speakers.

As we deal with this bill, I will remind members and witnesses to please maintain respectful dialogue and to be respectful to fellow members and witnesses at all times. It is in our best interest that we get through this and hear a diversity of opinions.

With that, I'd like to introduce our witnesses for the second panel.

As an individual, we have Dr. Jane Dobson. We have Daniel Santoro, who is a barrister and solicitor, and we have Rabbi Michael Whitman. We also have, representing the Archdiocese of Toronto, His Eminence Cardinal Thomas Collins.

Welcome.

We'll start now, for five minutes, with Dr. Jane Dobson.

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

I am talking about the definition of conversion therapy under section 320.101, or clause 5 of Bill C-6.

[Lisa Bildy, Barrister and Solicitor, Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms]

Thank you.

I am a lawyer with the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms.

Objectively harmful coercive practices that are designed to change a person's sexual orientation, as we've just heard, should be banned. That is what Canadians think of when they hear the phrase “conversion therapy”. But when it comes to gender identity, improperly conflated with sexual orientation in this bill, what we think we are talking about and what activists mean and are pushing for are not the same.

By conversion, they mean talk therapy or watchful waiting to help a child or adolescent become comfortable in their own body or that addresses other mental health concerns or past traumas, something that about 85% of them will do if given that space. That is what they want banned on pain of criminal sanction.

When they say “affirmation” they mean rejecting the body a child was born in and embarking on a path of puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, multiple surgeries, and a lifetime of medication and dire consequences such as sterility and loss of sexual function. A whole industry is developing around this conversion of kids, and it is being encouraged through the influence of gender activists on social media and even in our schools.

Yes, that is the real conversion here that is endorsed and supported by this bill. The LGB Alliance Canada report, which I implore you to read, speaks of lesbians and gays saying to each other in whispered conversations, “Thank God I am not a gay kid growing up right now. If I had been, there's no question that I would have identified as transgender and been sent for sexual reassignment.”

Yet we have to pretend that talk therapy and a cautious measured approach is the danger. A free society that supports individual rights, as Canada is supposed to be, would allow parents, children and health professionals to find the best path for each unique child, not have the state preordain that transition is the only permissible option.

It is not for the government to dictate such outcomes, and doing so in our submission contravenes the rights of parents and children guaranteed under section 7 of the charter. The bill needs to remove gender identity entirely.

Other countries are beginning to realize the horrors that have unfolded from allowing and encouraging kids to self-diagnose at the behest of gender ideologues. Progressive Sweden has shifted course dramatically just in the last few months, and in the United Kingdom we are seeing positive signs of this.

The Keira Bell case last week was groundbreaking. It confirmed what many parents, therapists and other medical professionals have been warning about for years: The affirmation bandwagon puts kids on an irreversible path to permanent changes that will adversely impact their physical health, bone density and other complications and likely cause them sterility and an inability to experience sexual pleasure. The court reviewed the evidence with some horror and concluded that once children go on puberty blockers, they almost invariably proceed through all the stages of transition, and that children under 16, and those likely under 18, cannot possibly provide informed consent to those consequences.

Canada is going in the wrong direction. We're being steamrolled by an aggressive ideology that changes our language, undermines our usual safeguards relating to children, demonizes as bigots those who are cautious, refuses to consider evidence that counters the approved narrative, and demands complete fealty on pain of social cancellation.

Standing up to this is not transphobic. It is being child-centric and rational and it is necessary. It in no way prevents adults who wish to transition from doing so, or even children whose parents and a licensed health professional think transition is the best outcome for that child. But it isn't the right outcome for all children.

I was surprised to learn yesterday that the committee would not be hearing from important voices like LGB Alliance Canada and Detrans Canada. Detransitioners are ignored because they shatter the narrative. The preamble to the bill says that it's a myth that people can change their gender, but those who have detransitioned are proof that either their gender can be changed or that what some young people go through when they say they are transgender is indeed a phase that they might simply outgrow.

Detransitioners are usually homosexual, mostly young people who have gone through medical transition and have some serious regrets. Many self-diagnosed as having gender dysphoria as minors and subsequently accessed irreversible hormone blockers, cross-sex hormones and double mastectomy without any form of psychological assessment, all by the age of 16.

I invited a member of Detrans Canada to share my time today, but that was not allowed. They have three major concerns with the bill as written, which I share.

Affirming every single patient with gender distress or confusion as trans, including medical transition, will definitely result in more detransitioners in the long term.

It will be illegal for mental health professionals to support detransitioners because they do not seek affirmation, but wish to reconcile with their sex.

Minors who have experienced medical malpractice through unnecessary medical transition will have no course for redress because service providers will cite Bill C-6, which mandates affirmation as the only legal treatment.

I encourage members, as part of their due diligence in considering this bill, to read their excellent submissions and testimonials, as well as those of LGB Canada. It’s important to make fully informed decisions and get this right.

Thank you.

[Alexandra Zannis, Social Policy and Communications Coordinator, Canadian Association of Social Workers]

Thank you to this committee for asking us to come here today.

As listed in our written submission, CASW strongly urges the following amendments to strengthen Bill C-6:

First, CASW recommends that the bill be amended to include gender expression.

Second, any language focused on the issue of consent or coercion is misdirected as this wording could create a significant loophole limiting the protective effect of this proposed law by claiming an individual can consent to a therapy that has been deemed psychologically harmful.

Third, in its current state, the bill implies that conversion therapy may be dangerous and harmful to minors, but not necessarily to adults. It is harmful to all people.

Fourth, any federal legislation should also revoke the charitable status, if held, of any organization that promotes, advertises or practices any form of conversion therapy.

Fifth, CASW strongly supports investing in a survivors' fund to access reparations and supports for those who have experienced this practice.

Finally, CASW advocates that funding accompany this bill for education and awareness campaigns highlighting the need to officially end all conversion therapy practices in Canada.

Thank you. I look forward to your questions.

[Joan Davis-Whelan, President, Canadian Association of Social Workers]

Thank you.

Good morning. My name is Joan Davis-Whelan, and I'm the president of the Canadian Association of Social Workers. We represent over 20,000 social workers across Canada.

It is my privilege and honour to be here today to provide witness to this historic legislation that will serve to protect all children and youth from those who are unaccepting of their inherent dignity and worth.

The Canadian Association of Social Workers enthusiastically applauds and provides unwavering support to all parliamentarians for their support of Bill C-6. We call for Parliament, the House of Commons and Senate of Canada, to put the safety and security of children and youth first by unanimously supporting and expediting this legislation into law. Any further delay in passing this reintroduced legislation is unacceptable. Not one more child or youth in Canada should endure the harm of this damaging and discredited attack against their persons.

I would now like to take a moment to thank the individuals who bravely stepped forward to share their stories of lived experience in enduring the harm inflicted by conversion therapy. Due to their relentless advocacy and commitment to protecting others, the vision of a Canada without legal conversion therapy will soon be realized.

In 2018, CASW released a position statement, in partnership with the Canadian Psychological Association, strongly condemning all forms of conversion therapy. Conversion or reparative therapy can take many forms, but can be broadly defined as any therapy with the goal of changing or converting an individual's sexual orientation or gender identity, regardless of age.

It is important to note that this so-called therapy is not evidence-based. It is completely discredited and causes extraordinary harm, especially amongst Canada's children and youth.

We now definitively know, and have heard time and time again, that conversion therapy directly contributes to two-spirited and LGBTQ+ youth experiencing disproportionate and alarming rates of mental health problems. Homelessness, poverty, violence and substance use result from this practice.

CASW would like to thank the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada as well as the Minister of Diversity, Inclusion and Youth for including the voice of the social work profession during the process of developing this bill.

Notwithstanding our steadfast support of this bill, CASW encourages this committee to adopt the key recommendations of the guide for legislative action for conversion therapy in Canada. CASW endorses the revised guide. Its recommendations are needed to strengthen this legislation to protect all people from this discredited form of fraudulent therapy.

I will now pass it over to my colleague, Alexandra Zannis, to provide CASW's recommendations.

[Peter Gajdics, Writer and Advocate, No Conversion Canada]

Thank you.

Madam Chair, my name is Peter Gajdics. I'm here to make recommendations for Bill C-6 based on my lived experience. I went through six years of conversion therapy with a licensed psychiatrist when I was a legal adult between 1989 and 1995. I was 24 years old when I met this doctor, 31 years old when it ended.

I'm the author of the book The Inheritance of Shame: A Memoir about my years in this therapy and my road to recovery. For the past 23 years I have spoken out about conversion therapy. In 2018 I helped initiate the first Canadian municipal ban on conversion therapy in Vancouver, my home city.

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

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

At their highest dosages he was prescribing near-fatal levels of these medications and I overdosed. I still consider it a miracle I didn't die. I left these six years shell-shocked. It was not so much that I wanted to kill myself as I thought I was already dead.

I later sued the doctor for medical malpractice. He denied treating me in order to change my sexual orientation. He claimed I had consented to his treatment. He said he had treated me for depression.

I imagine some will view my experiences as extreme, that it couldn't happen again today, except these are the exact words I've heard for over 20 years. As I write in my book, the horror of it all provokes disbelief. Though the facts of my treatment will differ from others', I believe the basic principles about fraudulent practice combined with a client's vulnerability, trust and lack of informed consent, will always apply to all, even today.

Currently there are no federal laws that would prohibit what happened to me with another legal adult, or even that could hold a similar practitioner accountable for his actions.

These are my recommendations for Bill C-6. The ban must be for all ages.

Banning conversion therapy is about ending a fraudulent practice that causes harm. This applies to all.

The ban should not include the word “will” or any suggestion of coercion. Suggesting coercion or the idea of forced conversion therapy, or even mentioning the will of the client, makes it sound as if conversion therapy could be anything other than coercive. It deflects attention away from the fraudulence and harm of these practices and to the actions of the client, their supposed willingness or consent to participate.

All forms of conversion therapy are inherently coercive and exist solely as a form of oppression over LGBT people. To imply otherwise is to invalidate the experience of survivors. Proper informed consent is not possible in these circumstances because all of these treatments are based on the false premise, the lie, that a person is broken by virtue of being gay or trans and that they can and ought to be changed. To suggest that a person could consent to such a thing is to say that they choose to do to themselves what has been done to them from the start. It is illogical and defeats the purpose of the bill.

Please ban conversion therapy for all, including adults.

Thank you.

[Nicholas Schiavo, Founder, No Conversion Canada]

Good morning, and thank you to the honourable members of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights and all those who have made this appearance possible.

My name is Nicholas Schiavo, and I'm the founder of No Conversion Canada. No Conversion Canada is a non-profit, non-partisan, grassroots and volunteer-led coalition of conversion therapy survivors, LGBTQ2 individuals, civil society experts, academics and Canadians from coast to coast. We work to eradicate conversion therapy abuse, amplify the voices of survivors and protect the safety of LGBTQ2 Canadians.

Since 2018, we have worked with stakeholders and policy-makers across Canada to develop bylaws and legislation to end this torture.

I am here today to support this human rights legislation and to provide insight and facts to strengthen Bill C-6 for the safety of all Canadians.

I am honoured to be here with a pioneer in this movement, a survivor, author and advocate, Mr. Peter Gajdics, whom I will now cede the rest of my time to.

Criminal Code

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

Madam Speaker, we are now at the third reading stage of C-7. This means all the amendments that will be considered by the House have now been considered, and we must now pronounce on the final version of the bill and its effects.

Before I speak about this bill in final form, I want to respond directly to what I see as the government's principal argument for this legislation and other similar legislation. It tells us this is all about choice: the choice of individuals to live as they choose and die as they choose. The idea is that moral judgments about good living and good dying ought to be made by the person doing the living and dying, as opposed to by someone else, because the individual is uniquely qualified to make judgments about their own happiness and someone outside their skin simply cannot make those judgments as well.

This is the one serious argument people use to advance this bill and others like it. We should of course appreciate the existence of other unserious arguments, such as the assertion that, “The courts told us to,” or, “This is what people we have consulted told us to do.”

A small part of this bill responds to a lower court decision, but most of it has been invented, out of thin air, by the government and whoever it consulted or did not consult. Over a thousand physicians have signed a letter opposing this bill, and every single disability rights organization that has spoken out about this bill has spoken in opposition to it. These are unserious arguments stemming from unserious readings of court decisions and unserious consultation.

The serious argument made in support of this bill, as I have stated, is that people ought to have the choice to make decisions about their living and dying because they know what will lead to their happiness better than anyone else. This is the argument, but we should also notice how those who use this argument ultimately choose to apply it selectively. Even while suggesting it is all about choice, they insist on changing the words we use to describe the choice in order to make us feel better about it.

The phrase “medical assistance in dying” was invented at the time Bill C-14 was proposed, and is not a phrase used in other countries to describe the phenomenon of doctors killing their patients. If this is really about choice, why do we have to invent new pseudo-terms to make ourselves feel better about that choice?

If I asked members point blank whether they think a person should be able to commit suicide, I am sure many would respond that this is not suicide. It is completely different, as it is medical assistance in dying. Formally, what is meant by medical assistance in dying is facilitated suicide, or killing in a medical context. We claim to be focused on choice, but we still are uncomfortable enough with the choice that we have to invent new words to describe it.

Some members do not like the use of the word “euthanasia” to describe the phenomenon of doctors and nurses killing their patients after being asked to do so. The Minister of Health told the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights that phrases “referring to this bill as 'euthanasia' legislation, which I have heard in the House of Commons, are incredibly demeaning to the dignity of people”.

The health minister may be interested to know the word euthanasia actually comes from two Greek words: “eu”, meaning well, and “thanatos”, meaning death. The term euthanasia means “good death”, and is itself a sanitization of the concept of killing. If the term is misleading, it is not because it is too harsh but because it is too gentle. As we have heard, not all cases of assisted suicide can reasonably be called good deaths by any definition.

Notice that the word euthanasia is never used to describe the administration of the death penalty. The term was invented in order to sanitize the idea of the medicalized killing of a consenting person. It is instructive that a sanitized term for this practice, once people had a full social awareness of its meaning and reality, had to be replaced by a new sanitized term to further obscure the true nature of what is taking place.

No doubt, in 20 or 30 years, the term MAID will be thought gauche and replaced with another, more up-to-date sanitization of a term that no longer makes us feel better about something we naturally feel uncomfortable about. The point is that if this all about choice, and if we are comfortable with this choice, why are we not comfortable speaking plainly about sick people committing suicide and about doctors killing their patients when asked to do so? Would that not be a more plain and accurate description of the choice that many wish to defend?

If there is a practice or activity that people are uncomfortable seeing depicted or hearing described accurately, perhaps we should ask ourselves why we feel uncomfortable instead of demanding that the images and descriptions be put aside.

Members should observe as well that the idea of a choice to die, or a right to die, is being advocated for selectively. Some people have a right to die and some people do not, apparently, so we have to ask why this principle is being selectively applied.

Suppose that I, an able-bodied healthy white man, experienced some great personal tragedy such as the death of a child or the breakup of my marriage. It is possible that following such an event I might start to experience extreme existential pain and suicidal ideation. If I then went to a doctor to share the feelings I was experiencing, I would not be presented with MAID as a way out of the challenges I was facing. The way I look, my health status and other characteristics I have would signal to the doctor that my life was worth living. We know it to be true that when a young, able-bodied person chooses to die, those around them will say, “What a tragedy. He had so much to live for.”

The argument for a choice to die does not apply to those who society believes should not choose to die, even if such people are sincere in their expression of pain, in their sense that their pain is irremediable and in their desire not to continue living, but what of a person who is older, who is disabled, who does not fit the stereotypical social mould of someone who has a lot to live for, presents themself to the health care system experiencing existential pain and suicidal ideation?

We know from testimony from the justice committee that people in this situation are offered and even pressured to opt for MAID. People who are elderly or living with disabilities are often offered and pushed to take MAID without asking for it. This is the testimony given over and over again at the justice committee and confirmed by the minister responsible for disability inclusion, who acknowledged how concerned she is about people with disabilities being regularly and proactively offered MAID that they do not want.

We see here an important and revealing contradiction in the application of the principle of choice. For some in society, death is seen as an unreasonable choice and is actively discouraged. For others, death is seen as a desirable choice and is actively encouraged. This is not just a debate about choice, therefore. Rather, it is a debate about how the architecture of choice is set up differently for different people, based on whether others assess their lives as being worth living.

This is what leaders in the disability community are deeply concerned about: how this legislation includes them and only them in the additional category of those for whom we think death is a reasonable course of action.

Suppose that of my four children one had a disability and suppose that I taught three of my children to always press on because life is beautiful, but I told the fourth child that they should consider death if they ever faced circumstance that they could not handle. Do colleagues think that situation would make my fourth child feel privileged by the special offer of choice or do colleagues think she would feel devalued by the fact that I thought death was uniquely an option for her, based on the presumption that her life was not worth living?

Choices do not exist in a social vacuum. When we speak about choice, we recognize that people are making choices between available options and the nature of those available options is constructed by the society in which they live.

I used to think that people were always better off with more options, that just like a menu at a restaurant, we are always better off with more options available to us: the longer the menu, the better. If I do not like any of the new options available, then no problem. I do not have to choose them, but I should not begrudge other people the opportunity to have more choices available to them, even if I do not like those choices. Nobody is made worse off by the lengthening of the menu. Then I realized that it was not that simple. If I am in a restaurant and the only options available are chicken or beef then, arguably, yes, I am better off with the addition of more items on the menu; a fish option, a vegetarian dish, etc., but there is also a case in which the existence of certain options on the menu fundamentally changes the nature of the experience.

Suppose that while travelling, I encounter a restaurant that offers a human flesh sandwich in addition to the usual fare. It is fairly safe that I would not stay and order in that restaurant even if I had no intention of ordering the human flesh sandwich. It is unlikely that any members of this House would feel comfortable eating in such a restaurant, even if all they planned to eat was the filet mignon. That example illustrates the way that the offer of an additional option can actually change one's entire experience of a place or environment. A person with a disability who is offered death has a very different experience of health care from a person who is consistently offered life-affirming care.

The fact that people are offered or encouraged toward certain choices, and that some people are offered those choices and others are not, changes the entire experience of health care for many people. Part of the response to this brave new world of so-called medical assistance in dying is that people are seeking safe spaces where they can receive care that is life-affirming. There are still many people in this country who have about as much interest in receiving care in an environment where death is being offered as they do in eating at a restaurant where cannibalism is offered. Such people should be free to receive care in a hospice where life is the only choice and where they feel safe from the possibility of pressure of a momentary weakness or from the sense that they are an unnecessary burden. Some are still looking for care that is animated by the conviction that all lives are always worth living, but perversely, those who claim to champion choice are actually attacking these safe spaces. With the absence of conscience protection in this or any other legislation like it, doctors are being forced out of their profession and life-affirming hospice care is being shut down.

We wonder why we have a crisis in long-term care in this country. Maybe it has something to do with the fact that so many of the people in organizations that have historically operated in this space are being pushed out because of a lack of conscience protection. Protecting the conscience rights of physicians and institutions is not just about the rights of providers. It is about the right, indeed the choice, of patients to receive care in a certain kind of environment if that is their desire.

I know from the many conversations that I have had with constituents, including those who are very supportive of the expansion of MAID, that the present realities of the social architecture of choice are top of mind for them during their advocacy. In other words, they want more euthanasia because they find the alternative intolerable. An absence of good care, an absence of effective pain management, an absence of support to live in a way that accords with their sense of dignity and a sense of resignation about these realities leaves them to want to be able to end it all, rather than endure under undesirable conditions, but those conditions could themselves be changed. The expansion of euthanasia, along with continuing pressure on all health care institutions to offer it, will further erode the life-affirming nature of care that people receive.

I remember once having a long conversation with a constituent who explained to me her reasons for advocating for expanded euthanasia. She emphasized the classic arguments about choice and control, and then shared with me a story of being in a care situation and struggling to have a bowel movement unaided. She went to the nursing station for help, and unfortunately was met with a gruff and unempathetic response. Her memory of the sense of indignity she felt, struggling for a long time on her own, and then seeking the help of a person who seemed uncaring and disgusted, was clearly a part of her thought process about the circumstances under which she would want to die.

While I can identify with her feelings in the moment, I think the solution is to give people the choice of compassionate care. It is a tragedy that people are considering death because of moments of perceived indignity that can be quite directly resolved.

Many older people who are considering death say that they do not want to be a burden on others. This is expressed as a matter of choice, but it is also revealing about the architecture of choice. It is generally unheard of for children to insist on paying rent to their parents or living independently because they do not want to be a burden. Certainly, I have never heard such sentiments from my children.

Why are elderly people made to feel like they might be a burden, while children are not? Again, this is an issue of social context. If children were constantly told from a young age that they were a great burden to their parents, that they were costing them money that could be spent on other things, and that they were interrupting their social lives, then children would likely start to worry about being a burden.

Conversely, if seniors and people with disabilities were constantly affirmed for their value and their ability to contribute to society, constantly told that they hold the key to our future rather than constantly being told about the burden they impose, then of course they would be more likely to choose life instead of death.

This is not just a question of choice. It is a question of the social architecture of choice that leads people to make different choices in different kinds of situations based on the limited options in front of them and based on the way that different options impact each other.

To underline this with one further point, it should not escape the notice of members that the government's Bill C-6, the proposed ban on conversion therapy, is built on the premise that people cannot consent to something that is contrary to their human dignity. Although I have concerns about the text of Bill C-6 as written, I agree with the principle that conversion therapy is wrong and should not be allowed.

In light of both Bill C-6 and Bill C-7, it remains unclear to me what the government's view is on the ability of a person to consent to harm. Is it the view of the government that people should be able to voluntarily consent to things that harm them? Looking at these bills together, we might conclude the government finds it okay for people to consent to death but not okay for people to consent to certain things that are deemed worse than death. However, this subjective categorization of certain harms as being worse than others clearly may contradict an individual's own subjective sense of what things are more harmful than others.

It is time for us, as parliamentarians, to talk about the choices that elderly people and people living with disabilities have in front of them, and to give them options besides death, to move from a narrow focus on questions of choice to a discussion of the architecture of choice that puts people in impossible and painful situations. A good society is not just one that gives people the formal right to make choices between different alternatives. It is one that ensures that those alternatives are sufficiently robust so that individuals are able to make choices that truly lead to happiness. Of course not all choices lead to happiness.

People can make choices that they think will lead to happiness, but do not. This is especially serious when a decision is final and irreversible. The wider community has a reasonable interest in ensuring that a person making that choice has at least all of the information in front of them, taking into consideration the fact that people can and often do adapt to new circumstances over time. A belief in the pursuit of happiness entails a belief in freedom but also a belief in the value of encouraging the considered use of freedom through due reflection.

Having reflected on the application of the concept of choice in this context, I would now like to make a few additional comments about the provisions of this bill and the timing of it. This bill proposes to eliminate the requirement that death be reasonably foreseeable for those seeking euthanasia and puts those for whom death is not reasonably foreseeable on a second track with some distinct requirements. The reconsideration of the question of reasonable foreseeability was provoked by a court decision in Quebec, the Truchon decision, which the government could have chosen to appeal but did not.

This bill deals with more than this question. It also arbitrarily eliminates a number of safeguards that have nothing to do with the Truchon decision. It eliminates the 10-day reflection period. It reduces the required number of witnesses. It eliminates the requirement for contemporaneous consent. The removal of the 10-day reflection period in particular has led experts to point out that this opens the door to same-day death, to a situation where a patient could request and receive euthanasia on the same day.

Some members of this House have strenuously objected to the use of this term. Same-day death is a jarring idea that someone's worst day could be their last, and that temporary suicidal ideation could lead to immediate death. However, those who find this term uncomfortable must face up to the fact that the legislation as written contains no parameters for those for whom death is deemed reasonably foreseeable.

If members believe that time parameters exist, then they should point to where they exist in law. If members believe that time parameters should exist, then they should have supported their reintroduction into the bill. As the law stands before us now, there are no legislated requirements around timelines for those for whom death is reasonably foreseeable.

At third reading, members must choose whether or not they will vote for same-day death in Canada. As Wilberforce said:

You may choose to look the other way but you can never say again that you did not know.

The Conservatives have proposed reasonable amendments to reintroduce the reflection period, introduce a shorter reflection period and reintroduce requirements around contemporaneous consent and independent witnesses, in particular, recognizing the different experiences people with disabilities have reported with respect to the health care system. We also introduced a requirement that health care practitioners only discuss euthanasia if it is brought up by the patient first. These safeguards matter and would protect vulnerable people by reducing their risk of being rushed and pressured into vulnerable situations.

In response to our call for safeguards, the government said it trusts health care practitioners and these rules are not required. The purpose of a safeguard is not to respond to what may be the average case, but to establish a minimum standard. We are talking about 100,000 people in this country whose professional qualifications would allow them to administer euthanasia. Are those 100,000 so uniquely virtuous or trustworthy they do not need laws to regulate their behaviour while the rest of us do? I believe most people in medicine are doing their best to selflessly serve others, but one needs only listen to the testimony at the justice committee to realize some of those who are providing health care have fallen short of that call. All of us need laws to regulate our behaviour to some extent. If we need regulations, then how can we expect those 100,000 people to be different? Are there no bad apples? I am not arguing they should be subject to unique suspicion, but that they simply need rules and laws to guide their actions like the rest of us do. People charged with taking another person's life should do so within strictly defined parameters for their own good and that of everyone else. I trust doctors just as I trust police officers, but they still need regulations and oversight. We recognize there are some bad apples on our police forces and if we need safeguards for police officers in light of their power to take life, then we also need safeguards for those in power to take life in a medical context.

The government has been working very hard to push the narrative about timing, claiming the Conservatives are responsible for delaying this bill. It should stand to reason that if the government wants us to invest in rapidly passing its bill, it must proceed to persuade us that it is a good bill, which it has not done. The Truchon decision requires a response, but matters would be much simpler if the bill only focused on a response to Truchon instead of a variety of other changes. As it is, we are forced to consider all of the elements together, not just the narrow part that responds to Truchon. This is the government's choice, not ours.

Let us also take stock of how we have come so close to the court deadline. This legislation was presented in February. In May and June, the Conservatives wanted the House to sit in a modified form, but the government refused to allow it. Then it killed its own bill by proroguing in August. All of these moves pushed us into the mid-fall before the bill was considered. It then received a mere four meetings of witness testimony at the justice committee. The government's approach to this legislation has been to delay until the last minute and then demand urgency instead of a considered review. Let us be clear that this is a political tactic designed to subject these radical changes to as little debate as possible.

As a high school student, I had the honour of participating in a special MLA for a Day program at the Alberta legislature. At one of our meetings, a seasoned Progressive Conservative minister explained to us how legislation was passed. Students were surprised by the length and complexity of the process. They asked why it took so long and could the process not be shortened a bit. The minister told us he was glad it took so long because one of the fastest pieces of legislation to ever pass in the Alberta legislature was the Sexual Sterilization Act of 1928, which allowed the government to sterilize people with disabilities against their will based on the analysis that they imposed an undue burden on society. Legislators at that time should have taken more time to listen to people with disabilities and considered the implications of what they were doing. The point that when we are in too much of a hurry to make decisions we risk undermining the fundamental rights of our fellow human beings, in particular, those living with disabilities, has stuck with me to this day.

Those of us on this side of the House who are raising concerns and demanding that time be taken to consider this bill and appropriate safeguards be put in place are on the right side of history. As was the case with the Sexual Sterilization Act of 1928, when this bill is repealed in five or 50 years, I will proudly tell my grandchildren that I took a stand for the universal immutable dignity of every human being.

[Colette Aikema, Speaker, As an Individual]

Thank you so much, members of Parliament, for inviting me to present to you today.

My name is Colette and I'm from Lethbridge, Alberta. I am a mom, a wife, and I have three of the world's most beautiful children.

I'm here today to tell you about how counselling helped me survive terrible trauma. Despite the government's assurances, my life-saving counselling would become illegal if Bill C-6 is passed, and that's why I think it's so important for you to hear my story.

When I was a child, I was abused. Because of it, I struggled for many years with sexual behaviour and attractions that I did not want. I compulsively masturbated. I had intrusive gay fantasies and rape fantasies. My developing attractions and behaviours got worse after I was gang-raped as a teenager. Three men who I knew raped me and damaged my sexual well-being. This horrible moment led to even worse sexual problems, like the use of pornography that involved rape and rape fantasies, both heterosexual and non-heterosexual, behaviours that severely distressed me.

This trauma negatively impacted my sexual intimacy with my husband. I had difficulty with even casual relationships because they triggered an urge to seek out sexually addictive behaviours, both gay and straight. I saw the world through a lens of sexual pain and confusion, and life became unbearable.

Thankfully, I found support in two places, from a University of Lethbridge counsellor whose service I paid for, and a faith-based sex addiction group. Both helped reduce my non-heterosexual behaviour, and the support saved my marriage, my sanity and my life.

The government has argued that Bill C-6 will not ban the counselling I received, because it exempts the exploration of a person's identity or its development, but I need to make this clear. I was not interested in exploring my non-heterosexual attractions and behaviours or its development, as I knew where they came from. I needed to reduce these behaviours.

Both my secular counsellor and my faith-based support group are a practice, treatment or service that helped me repress or reduce non-heterosexual attraction or sexual behaviour, and under Bill C-6, this life-saving treatment that I freely chose would be criminal.

Even if the government says this bill won't ban my counselling experience, groups like No Conversion Canada, who will be speaking after me, have already publicly stated on social media that they intend to use conversion therapy bans to attempt to shut down the kind of counselling that I received and to shut down the groups that support my right to counselling.

There are many legitimate reasons why someone may want to reduce their sexual attractions or behaviour, whether they be gay or straight, and those reasons are not for the government to decide.

In fact, there's no professional body in North America that includes the phrase “reducing non-heterosexual behaviours” in their definition of conversion therapy. Even the Canadian Association of Social Workers, who will be speaking after me, define it the same way as the Canadian Psychological Association as a reparative therapy, not just any practice that attempts to change the sexual orientation of bisexual, gay and lesbian individuals to heterosexual. That definition does not mention reducing non-heterosexual behaviour by consenting patients.

Professional counselling organizations recognize that it is not the job of the therapist to set the outcome for the patients. If professional counsellors do not set the outcomes of therapy, why does the government? In fact, isn't conversion therapy wrong because it forces an outcome on someone?

If Bill C-6 is passed, isn't it then forcing an outcome on me? Isn't Bill C-6 then a form of conversion therapy on victims like me?

When Lethbridge passed a similarly worded bylaw, the public was denied a chance to speak to it, and after it passed, I spoke to a city councillor about my story. Only then did he admit that they had not considered people like me when passing their bylaw.

I am speaking to you now so that you can avoid making the same mistake. Consider the thousands of other women who are raped and need help. Don't they deserve to get the counselling that will help them achieve their goals?

I'm now happily married and a mother. I know those of you who are parents worry about your kids like I do. If they're ever in trouble, I want to make sure they have access to the same life-saving care that I paid for.

Make this bill better by adopting the definition of conversion therapy used by actual professional bodies. This will ensure that this government is not forcing outcomes on patients and instead is recognizing the diversity of our lived experiences.

Thank you so much for your time. I'm available for questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Iqra Khalid]

Good morning, everybody. I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 15 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. Pursuant to the Order of Reference of Wednesday, October 28, 2020, the committee is meeting on its study of Bill C-6.

This is a hybrid format meeting. Members Mr. Cooper and Madam Findlay are with me here in the room and other members will be joining virtually.

I will remind you and the witnesses to unmute your mike when it's your turn to speak and to speak slowly and clearly so that the interpreters can do their work.

You have the option of picking your language. At the bottom of your screen for language Interpretation you can pick “English”, “French”, or “floor” for your better communication.

If you're not speaking, I would ask that you please put your microphone on mute.

The clerk and I will do our best to make sure that this meeting is run in an orderly fashion. Please address all questions and comments through the chair and we'll have a good meeting.

Today we are joined by a number of witnesses whom I would like to welcome.

Appearing as an individual we have Colette Aikema.

Appearing from the organization No Conversion Canada we have Nicholas Schiavo, who is the founder, and Peter Gajdics, who is a writer and advocate.

Peter, I hope you'll correct my pronunciation of your name when it's your turn to speak.

We also have, representing the Canadian Association of Social Workers, Joan Davis-Whelan, who is the president, and Alexandra Zannis, social policy and communications coordinator.

Last, we have the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms represented by Lisa Bildy, who is a barrister and solicitor.

Each of you will have five minutes to speak. We'll start with Colette Aikema for five minutes.

Go ahead, please.

[The Chair, Liberal, Iqra Khalid]

Thank you very much, Mr. Garrison.

At this time, I'd like to thank all of the witnesses on behalf of the committee for your powerful testimony and for appearing before us today in our deliberations on Bill C-6.

Thank you very much. We're looking forward to the next meeting.

For now, the meeting is adjourned.

[Mike Kelloway, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

That's wonderful.

I'm going to stick with you, Doctor. Bill C-6 defines conversion therapy as the following:

...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.

In May I read an opinion piece by you, I believe it was in The Globe and Mail, where you spoke to how important it was to understand conversion therapy if we wanted to end it.

Do you think the definition in this bill as it stands helps us to understand conversion therapy?

[Adrienne Smith, Lawyer, Adrienne Smith Law]

Thank you, Chairperson.

My name is Adrienne Smith.

I'm joining you today from the unceded territories of the Musqueam, the Tsleil-Waututh, and the Squamish people as well. As an uninvited settler in occupation, I'm committed to a decolonization that involves reparations and the return of land.

I am a social justice lawyer and a non-binary person. I use they/them and their pronouns.

In French, the masculine or neuter pronoun is “il”.

I could answer your questions in French.

In support of my submission today, I am submitting a written brief. I'm grateful to appear in support of Bill C-6, which seeks to regulate, by criminal sanction, practices that seek to convert queer and trans people by force or coercion.

Having listened carefully to other witnesses in the debate on this bill, I have three main points. The first is about the definition. The second is about the charter compliance of the bill. The third is about the necessity to protect transgender people in the sanction that is sought.

First, with respect to the definition, all parties have agreed about what we're talking about and all have expressed their will to stop it. Still, I note, the committee is encountering challenges to the scope of the bill from those who would seek greater certainty. With respect, the practice of conversion is abusive and fraudulent, and in no way bears any similarity to the distracting hypotheticals that you are hearing about or the kinds of counselling that people have witnessed to today that have been helpful to them. Those practices will still be allowed.

Again, with respect, I see people who are raising concerns repeatedly and are doing so for political reasons, based possibly on their opposition to the core of the bill and not in good faith. I work as a criminal lawyer. I have no concerns about what this bill says. I dispute that there would be a chill on legitimate care.

This bill would end coercive programs that seek to undermine the sexual orientation and gender identity of two-spirit, queer and trans people. It would not unduly limit spiritual and parental guidance unless that guidance seeks by force to convert, in which case it should be captured by the prohibition.

I agree that importing the terms of “gender identity and expression” from Bill C-16 would clarify.

I think that would be a helpful clarification.

With respect to the charter, I would recommend a brief amendment. I think, to start, the bill is charter-proof as it stands. I would recommend that the committee consider an amendment that would close the dangerous loophole with respect to adults. As drafted, the bill would allow adults to consent to conversion practices. It seems to me that the drafters of the bill have left this loophole out of fear that there would be a charter challenge.

I heard Minister Lametti ask for input, and I have some. I think the prohibition on this dangerous activity would be charter compliant for adults because it is a valid practice of the criminal law that's not in conflict with provincial power. The provinces agree this isn't valid health care. The harm is clear. The bill is carefully tailored to capture the harm. There would be a minimal infringement on religious practices that would sanction this type of abuse. Benevolent religious practices would not be captured by the scope of the bill.

Finally, the minister knows that the charter is not unlimited and is restricted by section 1, which sets out limits that are reasonably necessary in a free and democratic society. The protection of people standing farthest from justice is a reasonable limit. Sound medical care would still be allowed if you prohibit consent to abuse by adults, as I recommend. If you do not insert such language, we should tighten up the language around what consent means in this setting.

Finally, trans people need to be included within the wording of this bill. You've been urged by some witnesses, who are not friends of my community, to peel back protections for non-binary people. I think these folks seek to draw Parliament and this committee into an unhelpful debate about the merits of gender-affirming health care. That question is not before you. To be clear, many of these arguments unmasked of artifice deny the inherent dignity of queer and trans people.

As a result, I strongly recommend a slight amendment and that you adopt this bill.

Thank you.

[Timothy Keslick, ASL-English Interpreter, As an Individual]

Good afternoon, Madam Chair and members of the standing committee. My name is Timothy Keslick, and my pronouns are he/him. I'm currently an ASL English interpreter in the province of Ontario.

I'm speaking today from the traditional and unceded lands of the Mississaugas of the New Credit, the Anishinabe and the Haudenosaunee, lands that are governed under The Dish with One Spoon wampum treaty.

Please do forgive my nerves. This is my first time speaking in this kind of forum, so bear with me.

I currently have a bachelor's degree in linguistics, with a focus on language and power, as well as a bachelor's degree in interpretation, ASL English, with a focus on message analysis and intercultural discourse. I'm also a Catholic Christian and someone who identifies as a member of the LGBTQ2S+ community. I identify with the labels of queer, same-sex attracted, and/or gay.

I am very grateful to all those who made today possible: to Natasha Filoso-Timpson for her patience in corresponding with me to arrange for a notice of meeting, to those who were involved in the tech set-up, and to you, the members of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, for your time and attention today.

When I was asked to speak on the bill today, I was a bit defensive, as you may imagine. Conversion therapy is definitely a very triggering concept for a lot of people in the queer community, me included. Even now, as I'm talking, I can feel my heart beating more quickly and my eyes are watering up a bit. That's because of the experiences of friends, and also those of people who I may not have met, but I've certainly heard the stories of people who have either tried to pray the gay away or beat them until they repressed their same-sex desires.

In a more personal way, at one point I had gone to confession to a priest. I wasn't confessing that my sin was same-sex attraction. Being attracted to someone of the same sex is not viewed as a sin by the Catholic church, but I was confessing to something different and separate. That meeting resulted in it coming out that I was same-sex attracted, and I ended up being kept in a room and kind of restrained in a chair, while the priest kept trying to pray over me, trying to exorcise this demon of homosexuality from me.

I can say from a very deep place of personal lived experience and hurt that conversion therapy in its actual sense does harm. I also want to make it clear on this note that while that kind of experience can and does happen, and happened to me, I don't want it to seem that it's reflective of the majority of views of Catholic priests. It certainly is not of those whom I have had the honour and pleasure of interacting with. It's also not the experience of most Catholics who identify as queer individuals or those with same-sex attraction, but it doesn't make it any less wrong or any less hurtful. I just want to be transparent on that point.

Again, when I was originally asked to speak on this bill, I was like, “Well, I'm certainly not going to be speaking against the bill because I would actually fully support it.” As I said, I don't think conversion therapy should be allowed, and I don't think people should be able to ship off their queer family members or loved ones to a different country and have them go through that form of abuse there if it's outlawed here in Canada. At the same time, as I said, I stand by the decision against actual conversion therapy, but after reading through the actual draft of the legislation, however, I cannot support Bill C-6 in its current wording.

The value of the proposed bill is that it wants to reduce harm and it wants to prevent members of the queer community from being hurt simply because of something that they do not have any control over: something that they don't have any control over choosing, and something that—at least based on the majority of scientific and peer-reviewed articles that I've read—they can't change.

The problem for me, however, as someone who would have access to my services limited by this bill, is that the passing of this bill would cause harm to me. Because of various instances of emotional neglect growing up, I have very physically and emotionally unhealthy relationships. At times, these relationships have led me to being sexually assaulted, as well as emotionally manipulated. I currently see a counsellor, and we talk about ways for me to have better boundaries and to protect myself, and to make sure that any relationship I enter into is free, happy and healthy.

Under this bill, this kind of therapy would be taken away from me. The bill doesn't make any distinctions between good therapy or bad therapy. The bill would capture my therapy as one that wants to reduce non-heterosexual attraction or, more specifically, sexual behaviour. Without realizing that my therapy isn't actually trying to stop me from dating any guy, it's simply trying to stop me from dating the wrong guy. It's there trying to help me avoid people and situations that would harm me and have already harmed me.

The bill may not want to take away this kind of counselling, and I would applaud it for that, but the issue, however, is that the language right now is much too ambiguous and too far-reaching. If I were working and were trying to interpret this bill into ASL for a deaf consumer, I would definitely need to seek a lot of clarification and do additional research outside of the context of the bill to find out what is and is not included.

That kind of ambiguity in a piece of legislation this important is very concerning to me. I think the bill needs to be amended to clarify the definition of conversion therapy. I don't want the good counselling that I have received to be taken away from me, and as it is right now, the bill doesn't guarantee that. The goal of this bill is to prevent harm from coming to the queer community and to prevent harm from being done to the queer community, but as it is right now, the bill would take my counselling away from me, and that would cause harm.

Again, thank you very much for your time and attention. After the other witnesses, with permission from the chair, I am open to any questions.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Iqra Khalid]

Good afternoon, everybody. I call this meeting back to order.

We are studying Bill C-6. I have just a few comments for witnesses before we get started.

Before speaking, please wait until I recognize you by name, and then unmute yourself on the microphone. Once you're done speaking, please mute yourself again to limit any interruptions. You have the ability to select the language of interpretation at the bottom of your screen so that you can listen in throughout the whole meeting and understand.

When you're speaking, please speak slowly and clearly. This is for interpretation purposes. When you're not speaking, as I said, your microphone should be on mute.

This is a reminder that all comments by members and witnesses should be addressed through the chair. My pronouns are she and her. If witnesses and members feel comfortable, please do share your pronouns so that we can address you properly.

With that, I'd like to introduce our witnesses.

We have Timothy Keslick, an ASL-English interpreter; Dr. Travis Salway, an assistant professor in the faculty of health sciences at Simon Fraser University; Emmanuel Sanchez; and Adrienne Smith, a lawyer.

Welcome, witnesses.

We'll start with Timothy Keslick for five minutes.

Go ahead, sir.

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

Thank you very much, Madam Chair, and I want to thank all of the witnesses for your very important testimony as we consider Bill C-6.

I'm going to direct my questions to Mr. Ruba.

Mr. Ruba, through you, Madam Chair, we heard from witnesses on Tuesday who expressed concern that Bill C-6 would create a chilling effect on counsellors and medical professionals who may fear consequences for providing any services that could help patients like you manage unwanted behaviours or attractions.

Have you experienced this chill effect?

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Erika Muse, Jack Saddleback, André Schutten and Jose Ruba, thank you for being here. I know it's a different set-up when we're here virtually, but all of your advice is helpful as we deal with Bill C-6.

Jack Saddleback, it seemed as if you were just about to finish your statement. I only have six minutes, but if you want to take 30 seconds or so and finish what you were going to say, go ahead and do that.

[Jose Ruba, Advisor, Association for Reformed Political Action Canada]

Members of Parliament, thank you for taking the time to hear my comments today.

I came to Ottawa as a journalism student years ago, excited to learn about Canadian rights and freedoms. I am speaking today because I believe Bill C-6 threatens the rights of all Canadians, but especially LGBT Canadians.

When I lived in Ottawa, I began to see a counsellor to help reduce my unwanted same-sex attractions and behaviour. Sadly, those of us who benefit from this counselling are not included in these discussions. That is why I need to share a statement supported by dozens of my friends who have gone through the same experience. We applaud the government if it wishes to pass legislation that criminalizes, in an explicit manner, coercive counselling practices, but Bill C-6 conflates harmful methodologies with the goals Canadians choose for themselves.

We are Canadians whose goal was to reduce unwanted sexual behaviour or gender confusion. We chose counselling as the methodology to achieve this goal. We were not coerced or harmed by this counselling; rather, this counselling helped us reduce behaviours that we no longer wanted to engage in. For many of us, this counselling saved our lives.

This counselling is threatened by Bill C-6's definition of conversion therapy. The definition is not used by any professional body in North America. The Canadian Psychological Association, the Canadian Psychiatric Association and their American counterparts do not include the phrase “reduce non-heterosexual attraction or sexual behaviour”. Good counselling will always help patients change behaviour they no longer want to engage in.

There are legitimate reasons why Canadians would want to reduce sexual behaviour without changing their orientation. Sexual behaviour can include porn, sexual addiction or extramarital affairs. If Bill C-6 passes, heterosexuals would be able to get supports to reduce these behaviours, but LGBT Canadians will not. Consenting adults would not be able to pay for a professional counsellor and mature minors would have no choice at all. In fact, this bill says that only the counselling sessions of LGBT Canadians will be regulated by criminal law. That would be a violation of our charter rights.

Now, the government argues that this bill would not impact a person's gender transition or person's exploration of their identity or development, but by adding the phrase “reduce non-heterosexual attraction or sexual behaviour” the government is already telling us what we're allowed to conclude from our exploration. We agree with ARPA's proposed amendments and ask you add “coercion” to the definition of conversion therapy.

We are not asking that you agree with our goals. We are asking you to respect our right to set goals for ourselves. In other words, we are simply asking that you recognize we exist.

Thank you.

[André Schutten, Legal Counsel and Director of Law and Policy, Association for Reformed Political Action Canada]

Thank you so much, Madam Chair and honourable committee members.

Degrading and harmful practices are wrong and they should be banned, yet legislators must be nuanced and precise in their definitions to avoid capturing practices and services that are helpful to some. The definition of conversion therapy in C-6 is too broad and vague. It captures helpful counselling and psychological support for children, teens and adults, as my colleague, Jose, will address in a moment.

As it stands, Bill C-6 would make it a criminal offence for parents to bring their child to a counsellor to address gender dysphoria and for the counsellor to help that child. The penalty for both the counsellor and the parent is up to five years in prison. Bill C-6 will also deny to some members of the LGBTQ community the broad range of counselling choices that are freely available to all other Canadians. In a tragic twist, Bill C-6's overly broad definition ends up discriminating against the very people it purports to help, contrary to the charter.

While the federal government should be concerned about and legislate on dangerous methods, such as electroshock therapy, surgical or pharmaceutical interventions and so on, it must not conflate methods on the one hand with goals on the other. Again, Jose will speak about his personal experience with this in a moment.

ARPA Canada supports a well-defined ban on conversion therapy. Our written submissions propose amendments in more detail. I'll just highlight three.

First, add the word “therapeutic” at the beginning of the definition of conversion therapy to focus the scope of this bill and alleviate legitimate concerns of parents, teachers and spiritual leaders. Second, cut the reference to sexual behaviour from the definition because it unfairly prevents members of the LGBTQ community from accessing counselling that's freely available to all other Canadians. Finally, add a clarification that conversion therapy does not include religious teaching on identify and ethics. That would direct police, investigators and prosecutors to focus their attention not on religious minorities, but rather on outdated therapeutic practices.

I'll now turn it over to my colleague, Jose.

[Jack Saddleback, Co-Chair, 2 Spirits in Motion]

[Witness spoke in Cree and provided the following translation:]

My dear friends and respected relatives as well.

[English]

My name is Jack Saddleback. I go by he/him pronouns, and I am from the Samson Cree Nation in Maskwacis, Alberta. I'm also an out and proud Cree two-spirit transgender gay man.

Today I am representing the 2 Spirits in Motion society as the co-chair and am speaking to you from the Treaty No. 6 Territory of Saskatoon, Saskatchewan.

I speak today as an invited member to address the need of Bill C-6 in the Criminal Code of Canada to criminalize conversion therapy in our country.

As stated through the Government of Canada's website on the announcements of the reintroduction of this bill:

Diversity and inclusion are among Canada's greatest strengths. Canadians must feel safe in their identities, and free to be their true selves. This is why the Government of Canada is acting on its commitment to criminalize conversion therapy in Canada.

I commend this strong stance and implore the Government of Canada to pass this bill with the following in mind.

This year marks the 30th anniversary of the adoption of the term “two spirit” by indigenous LGBTQ2IA people and organizations in North America, which was brought by a vision and offered by Dr. Myra Laramee in Manitoba in 1990. This extended the understanding of the term two spirit to be a pan-indigenous acknowledgement of the historical acceptance of gender and sexual diversity in indigenous communities prior to colonization.

I should say that this particular term of two spirit is intended, as well, simply as a placeholder until each community member can rightfully uncover and reclaim their ancestral knowledge and language of these sacred roles.

I feel it is vital that the voice of two-spirit people be within speaking to the bill for three clear reasons.

Number one is our indigenous world views of gender and sexual diversity and our inherent culture of non-interference and respect that have uplifted each community member for their unique gifts for time immemorial.

Number two is the attempted subjugation of indigenous children and indigenous communities to adhere to a patriarchal cisnormative gender binary system and the heteronormative narrative imposed on these lands.

Number three are the ongoing effects of these systems, such as residential schools, that put two-spirit/2SLGBTQ2IA peoples in harm's way when it comes to conversion therapy.

Speaking to point one, our indigenous world views of gender look at multi-dimensional aspects of a person in that their vessel, or body, is simply that—a vessel. These vessels certainly do come with teachings, and they are one part of a whole. Our understanding of gender is not based on the body; rather, it is based on the skills, gifts and roles that a person holds within their community.

Further, our indigenous world view of love understands that sâkihito-maskihkiy, or love medicine, was one of the most powerful of medicines graced to our people by kisemanito, or the great being. We understood that we had no place as human beings to stand in the way of who a person loves, as we understood that love is love.

There are a number of teachings I would be more than happy to share with you at a later date, but today we must focus on the latter two of my points when addressing conversion therapy.

In point two, we look at the harmful effects of the attempted subjugation of indigenous children and indigenous communities to adhere to a patriarchal cisnormative gender binary system and the heteronormative narrative that has been imposed.

These systems have been used through the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms itself, the bureaucratic systems that run our country, and more specifically, when looking at indigenous communities, the Indian Act, and how aspects of the act attempt to impose these mentalities.

Further, concrete examples of these imposed narratives come from my own family who have shared stories of the outlawing of our ways of life, and how this has impacted our traditional oral teachings, which in turn affected the openness of our discussions of gender and sexual diversity.

I say these teachings and the facts to lead me to my third point, that being the ongoing effects of these systems, such as residential schools, that put two-spirit/2SLGBTQQIA peoples in harm's way when it comes to conversion therapy.

Our own communities are still reeling from the effects of the aforementioned systems. Some of the biggest impacts are the pivoting and intergenerational trauma that has introduced a culture of interference for indigenous communities across Turtle Island.

Now I say the next few items with the greatest of care. Our own indigenous communities have been subjected to conversion therapy through the malicious use of residential schools that have harmed many indigenous families, and more specifically, numerous named and unnamed two-spirit children. These effects are still happening today. This is taking place bluntly or surreptitiously under the guise of biased cultural leaders, or where two-spirit community members are at the spear's edge of the harmful effects of conversion therapy that tries to strip them of their natural love for the same gender or more genders, or to discredit their own gender identity and gender expression.

When looking at Bill C-6, we must take into account the tremendous impact that colonization has had on our traditional world views and acceptance of gender and sexual diversity.

Thus, my friends, I reiterate that Bill C-6 must pass and must do so with the intention of being accessible to all citizens affected by conversion therapy, and it must be intersectional in principle, as conversion therapy looks different from culture to culture—

[Erika Muse, As an Individual]

Hello, and thank you to the committee for inviting me here as a witness. Thank you to my mom, Vicki Hartley, for loving and supporting me through all this.

My name is Erika Muse and I am a survivor of trans conversion therapy. I underwent conversion therapy at the now-closed youth gender clinic at the Centre for Addictions and Mental Health, CAMH, in Toronto, with Kenneth Zucker. Yes, that is the same Kenneth Zucker who spoke to you on Tuesday, painting himself as a semi-retired professional and academic arguing for the rights of trans youth.

Dr. Zucker saw me as a patient for seven years, from the ages of 16 to 23, and denied me trans-affirming health care in the form of both hormones and surgery until I was 22. Dr. Zucker instead put me through what he has termed “desistance treatment” for trans youth. He interrogated me in talk therapy for hours at a time, inquisitorially attacking, damaging and attempting to destroy my identity and my self-esteem, and to make me ashamed and hateful of myself.

I specifically saw him in order to be referred for puberty blockers and trans hormone replacement therapy, as his clinic was the only one able to provide these treatments for many Ontarian youth at the time. Instead of providing affirmative care to fix my growing gender dysphoria and mental health issues, Zucker intentionally denied me care.

Trauma has cloaked many of my memories of the horrible treatment he put me through, but I remember the day he commented very positively on how my shoulders and ribcage had filled out. I had grown to look like a man. I remember trying not to cry in his office. Years into treatment, he had condemned me to the fate I wished to avoid, the very one I asked him every session to save me from. He made my body a prison and it is to this day.

Conversion therapy almost broke me and I live with its physical and emotional scars to this day, but I was only a small part of Zucker's practice. I spoke up as a survivor of his treatment for Ontario's Bill-77, which banned conversion therapy in Ontario. That bill led to his clinic being reviewed and shut down when the review found that he'd been practising conversion therapy and denying trans health care to the population he was meant to protect. Zucker now practises privately.

Furthermore, Zucker has written and published many scholarly articles and books on his conversion therapy practices for trans youth and has advocated for adult conversion therapy on trans people as well. He lied to you when he spoke on Tuesday. He practises conversion therapy on trans people to this day, on people of all ages, and he sees trans lives and trans existence as something to be hated and stopped.

I think he only gave up on trying to stop me when he realized he couldn't win, but he's still trying to hurt others. This is the most important thing I want you to know. Zucker attempted to change my gender identity both before and after I turned 18, and he never allowed for exploration, consideration or development of my gender. Instead, he worked as much as he could to stop me from being my true self.

Zucker and his colleagues are the international proponents and researchers of conversion therapy for trans people of all ages across the world. Canada exports our home-grown hatred to the rest of the world but Bill C-6 will delegitimize that and stop it from being spread further. Whatever these theories and papers call their practices—“autogynephilia”, “rapid-onset gender dysphoria”, “watchful waiting” or “desistance therapy”—by Zucker and Blanchard and Littman and Cantor and Bailey and Bradley, and so many others.

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

There are many briefs in front of the committee stating that gender-affirming care is actually conversion therapy for gay, lesbian or bisexual youth and that gender identity should be removed from the purview of Bill C-6. I implore you, do not listen to them. These briefs and the testimony you heard yesterday and may hear in future sessions are based in research crafted through blood and agony and pain from me and the many other trans people who suffered for years at CAMH and who have suffered since.

I know because I'm in that study data, because Zucker asked me to be one of his participants and I had no right to refuse. This is a blight, a wound on the lives of trans people across the world. You can stop it, but you must go further to make sure it can't happen anymore. You must extend Bill C-6 to ban conversion therapy at all ages. Canadians cannot consent to fraudulent practices or to bodily and mental harm, and conversion therapy is a terrible harm.

You must further add language to the definition in Bill C-6 of conversion therapy so that practices cannot act to change someone's gender expression as well as their gender identity, to bring it into harmony with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. You must strike the greater certainty clauses from that definition, as Zucker and many other practitioners of conversion therapy against trans people present their services as part of exploring or developing a patient's gender identity.

I saw Zucker for a referral, a service related to my gender identity. That was what the youth gender clinic's purpose was in CAMH and in the Ontario health system. Instead, he used that power and that position to ruin my life, my body and my mind. The wounds that Zucker caused me can never be undone. I don't know if I'll be able to heal and feel right or whole, or right as a person, ever again. This Parliament, this committee can make sure it never happens to Canadian people, ever again.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Iqra Khalid]

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to the 14th meeting of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Wednesday, October 28, 2020, the committee is studying Bill C-6. Today's meeting is in a hybrid format. Members, obviously, can participate in person or by video conference. Witnesses can only participate by video conference. All members, regardless of their method of participation, will be counted for the purposes of quorum.

To ensure an orderly meeting, I will outline a few rules.

Members and witnesses may speak in your official language. You will see the interpretation selection at the bottom of your screen. You can follow along in either the floor, English or French. Before speaking, click on the microphone icon to activate your own mike. When you are done speaking, please put yourself on mute to minimize any interference.

I will remind you that all comments by members and witnesses should be addressed through the chair. We'll try our best, the Clerk and I, to maintain a speakers list to ensure that everybody has their say. Use the “raise hand” action at the bottom of your screen if you would like to speak.

Masks are required, obviously, for Mr. Cooper and me. We have ours over here.

If you need to get my attention, just signal to the clerk or to me. I would appreciate that.

Today I'd like to welcome the following witnesses. As an individual, we have Erika Muse. We have 2 Spirits in Motion, represented by Jack Saddleback, co-chair, and also the Association of Reformed Political Action Canada, represented by André Schutten, the legal counsel and director of law and policy, and Jose Ruba, the adviser.

Without further delay, we'll go right into the opening remarks by witnesses. Each witness has five minutes.

We'll start with Erika Muse.

Go ahead. You have five minutes.

[Dr. Kenneth J. Zucker]

Sure, I'll try to answer that.

In science, we have a term called “operational definition”, meaning that we have a particular term and then we have to define it in a way so everybody can agree on what one is actually measuring.

My point about Bill C-6—it's very similar to all prior legislation, including Bill 77 in Ontario—is that there's this “does not apply” clause, which I read out to you. It does not include practices, etc. that relate to a person's exploration of their identity.

That is a completely vague descriptor. It does not give clinicians clear guidance on what is considered acceptable in terms of exploration. I think that is a fundamental problem. It's frightening to parents, because they worry that they're going to be accused of taking their kids for conversion therapy, whereas any well-trained clinician, as I said earlier, does not coercively try to change a child's or an adolescent's gender identity.

I think a well-trained clinician engages in all kinds of exploration. The problem with Bill C-6 is that it doesn't define what that means or doesn't mean. I think that is a very serious issue.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you to each of the witnesses who are appearing here today on Bill C-6. We appreciate your taking the time to give your perspective on this piece of legislation.

For our part, we want to make sure that we get this legislation right and that it does what it says it's going to do.

Dr. Zucker, I want to ask you a question. You mention the definition and challenges with the definition. That's something we've identified. When this bill was introduced, the minister gave lengthy remarks about what the bill doesn't do. He says that it doesn't criminalize many things, including expression of “views on sexual orientation, sexual feelings or gender identity...such as where teachers, school counsellors, pastoral counsellors, faith leaders, doctors, mental health professionals, friends or family members provide support to persons struggling with their sexual orientation, sexual feelings, or gender identity.”

We're starting to get feedback from different stakeholder groups throughout Canada. One of the concerns that have been raised is that if this is what the bill purports not to do, if this is what the minister says it doesn't do, then we should fix or strengthen the language and the definition so it more narrowly focuses on what our goal is, which is to make sure that people are not subjected to conversion therapy.

Can you maybe explore a little further your thoughts on the definition and what you see as faults with the definition as it's currently construed? It's our job as parliamentarians to make sure that we get this bill right. The committee level is where we get that feedback and can perhaps have amendments that would improve the bill.

[Ghislaine Gendron]

Thank you, Dr. Cantor.

I'd like to thank the committee members for having invited our organization, Pour les droits des femmes du Québec, or PDF Québec.

In September 2019, PDF Québec received an email from a young woman who wanted to inform us of treatment she had undergone for gender dysphoria and about how it had affected her life once she reached adulthood. She asked me to read the following evidence on her behalf:

During adolescence, my periods were so painful and frequent that they interfered with my education. My doctor was not helping me obtain appropriate care. It's also around that time that my borderline personality disorder surfaced. I was given psychiatric treatment after frequent hospitalizations. I was obsessed by the idea of being perfect, and I became very hung-up about my appearance. I didn't feel like a proper woman. After learning about gender identities on the Internet, I found an escape route from my complexes and periods: transitioning. I was given access to hormone blockers, testosterone, and a mastectomy. The psychiatric team treating me had noted increased aggression and some suicide attempts. Rather than accepting myself, I chose it as a way to escape who I was. I stopped taking hormones after three years, but some side effects are not reversible. I went into debt to pay for breast implants. Going back is not as easy as the initial transition.

This young lady was still a minor when she underwent a mastectomy and biomedicalization. Her personality disorder had been diagnosed before she took steps to receive gender affirmation therapy. Her case is unfortunately similar to what has happened to many young ladies who show up at gender clinics. Dr. Cantor, who is with me here today, can explain it better than I could.

How would a practising psychologist who meets this young lady tomorrow be regarded under Bill C-6?

Would the psychologist be criminalized for asking a child about her perception of her condition or her self-diagnosis of gender dysphoria?

Twice as many girls as boys are affected by gender dysphoria, though the ratio has been reversed in recent statistics. In the legislative summary for Bill C-6, the subject is neither addressed nor explained.

We had to change our opening statement this morning at the very last minute, and I would like to apologize to members of the committee and to the interpreters. That's because barely three hours ago, the BBC broadcast information of crucial importance to this topic. I'll tell you about it.

The High Court of the United Kingdom ruled today that children under the age of 16 with gender dysphoria are unlikely to be able to give informed consent to treatment with puberty-blocking drugs or cross-sex hormones.

The young Keira Bell, who detransitioned in adulthood, won her case in England against the Ministry of Health. However, our health department does not appear to have been mentioned in the bill.

Thank you for your attention.

[Dr. James Cantor, Advisor, Pour les Droits des Femmes du Québec]

I only have a few words to say.

I hope that you'll support Bill C-6, except for the inclusion of gender identity, because the bill treats it the same as sexual orientation.

As a clinical psychologist and research scientist, I've been providing therapy and publishing on the neuroscience of human sexuality for over 25 years now, including helping many transsexuals to successfully transition. I've served as a senior scientist at the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, editor-in-chief of the journal Sexual Abuse, and associate professor at the University of Toronto. I'm currently the director of the Toronto Sexuality Centre.

Finally, I'm also an openly gay man. I was lucky to have appropriate and supportive therapy when I was a teenager, now long ago, and I feel honoured to have the opportunity to help ensure that future generations have access to it.

Therefore, I am here today to help provide three perspectives: that of a scientist, to point out that this legislation mistakes the content of the current science; that of a mental health care provider, to note that this bill would cause a chill effect, inhibiting my and others' ability to act in the patient's best interest; and that of a member of the LGBT community itself, to describe exactly how this is affecting my brothers and sisters.

Thank you, and I look forward to your questions.

[Dr. Kenneth J. Zucker, Psychologist and Professor (Status Only), University of Toronto, As an Individual]

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to address your committee.

I am a clinical and research psychologist. Since 1976 I have seen over 1,600 children and adolescents who experienced gender dysphoria. I was the chair of the sexual and gender identity disorders work group that was part of the task force for the fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders published by the American Psychiatric Association. I have published over 300 peer-reviewed articles and book chapters on this topic, so I feel that I have the necessary background to address elements of Bill C-6.

Up front, let me state that I am in full agreement that mental health clinicians should not attempt to change the sexual orientation of individuals under the age of 18 years. However, I want to point out quite strongly that contemporary mental health clinicians do not engage in such practice and have not done so for decades. Mental health clinicians do not practise conversion therapy with gay, lesbian or bisexual adolescents.

Where I disagree quite strongly with Bill C-6 is in its additional focus on gender identity in children and adolescents. Since the State of California passed similar legislation in 2012, there has been an insidious conflation of sexual orientation and gender identity. Not only does the proposed legislation erroneously conflate two very distinct psychological phenomena, but it also completely ignores developmental considerations.

The original criticisms of sexual orientation change efforts were targeted at the unsuccessful efforts by clinicians to try to change the sexual orientation of adults. Bill C-6, by conflating sexual orientation, now targets clinicians who work with children as young as the age of three years and their parents.

In my view, this is a serious mistake. Do politicians appreciate this conflation? The background scientific material provided to the committee by Phillips and Walker is completely silent with regard to what is known about best-practice therapy for children and adolescents with gender dysphoria. No well-trained mental health clinician attempts to coercively change the gender identity of either a child or an adolescent. Well-trained clinicians consider what the best therapeutic approach might be to reduce gender dysphoria, a mental health diagnosis in DSM-5, and the distress associated with it. There are various ways in which this can be accomplished.

The problem with Bill C-6 is as follows.

In clause 5, proposed section 320.101 defines “conversion therapy” in part as “a practice, treatment or service designed to change a person's...gender identify to cisgender”. Yet, the same proposed section states that this does not include “a practice, treatment or service that relates...to a person's exploration of their identity or to its development”. Bill C-6, like many initiatives that have preceded it, is completely vacuous in defining what such exploration would look like or constitute. Let me give you a couple of examples.

A three-year-old boy expresses a very strong desire to be a girl. When asked why he wants to be a girl, he tells his parents that he likes very much to play with Barbie dolls and to wear dresses. Under Bill C-6, can a mental health clinician explore with such a child this belief? For example, would it be acceptable to point out that boys can play with Barbie dolls too?

A seven-year-old boy expresses a very strong desire to be a girl. When asked why, he says that all the boys in his classroom at school are mean and rough. In contrast, all the girls in his classroom are kind and gentle. He does not want to be mean or play rough. Under Bill C-6, can a mental health clinician explore with such a child these beliefs? For example, would it be acceptable to point out that not all boys are mean and rough and that not all girls are kind and gentle?

A 14-year-old girl expresses a very strong desire to be a boy. This girl also has a diagnosis of autism spectrum disorder, which includes the propensity to think in very binary terms. Because she does not feel like other girls, she thinks that the only option is to be a boy. Under Bill C-6, can a mental health clinician explore with this adolescent the idea that there are many ways that one can be a girl?

In my view, Bill C-6 should be modified in one of two ways. One is to delete entirely any reference to gender identity and restrict it to sexual orientation, the original target of criticism of conversion therapy. Failing that, Bill C-6 should be extensively revised in terms of explaining the scope of what exactly it means to engage in exploration of gender identity or its development—in other words, provide objective markers.

Such a revision would help both clinicians and families that have a child or adolescent experiencing gender dysphoria understand what the legislation truly intends to target.

Thank you.

[Dr. Kristopher Wells, Canada Research Chair, MacEwan University, As an Individual]

Thank you.

Today I'm speaking with you from the Edmonton area, on Treaty 6 territory.

I would like to thank you for the opportunity to address the committee, in particular on World AIDS Day. Today we are fighting against another form of discrimination, prejudice and stigma in the form of conversion therapy.

In support of my comments today, I have submitted a written brief and would like to draw the committee's attention to our national report, entitled “Conversion Therapy in Canada: A Guide for Legislative Action”. It includes 15 national endorsements from many public sector and LGBTQ2 organizations, background information and research, and, most importantly, the voices and experiences of the brave Canadian survivors of conversion therapy, such as Matt, who support legislative action to help end this fraudulent and abusive practice.

I would like to congratulate the Government of Canada for its leadership and action against conversion therapy, which is not therapy at all but a recognized form of coercion and abuse, and in some cases may rise to the level of torture as defined by the International Rehabilitation Council for Torture Victims and the United Nations independent expert on protection against violence and discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity.

I strongly support Bill C-6 as an important legislative initiative to help bring awareness to the issue of conversion therapy and its associated harm, and to provide an important mechanism for victims to seek protection and redress through the Criminal Code of Canada.

The bill also sends an important message to all Canadians about the inherent dignity, self-worth and respect that should be afforded to LGBTQ2 people. Fundamentally, no one should have to change who they are, or whom they love, to find acceptance and support in their faith, family or community.

The research is clear. Conversion therapy has been shown to be an unethical, harmful and dangerous practice. Almost all leading health, medical and professional associations have denounced conversion therapy and its associated practices.

In Canada, an open letter supporting the research consensus against conversion therapy has been signed by 120 Canadian academics and public policy experts, including 16 distinguished research chairs.

I would like to focus my remaining comments on three critical areas to consider as potential amendments to Bill C-6. These include aligning and clarifying the definition of conversion therapy, extending protections to include all adults in the legislation, and providing support for victims and survivors of conversion therapy efforts.

First, the proposed definition of conversion therapy in Bill C-6 should use a more standard and consistent definition that is currently in wide use within many municipal bylaws and provincial/territorial acts prohibiting conversion therapy. Rather than focusing on particular identities or directional orientation, these legislative definitions should use plain language and include clearly understood grounds against discrimination that are protected in all provincial and territorial human rights acts in Canada.

For example, Bill C-6 ought to align with the Canadian Human Rights Act by explicitly including protections against change efforts directed at any person's sexual orientation, gender identity or gender expression. Some simple amendments would help refine the definition in Bill C-6 and reinforce that all forms of conversion therapy are prohibited, and would also clarify which practices are not included and considered acceptable in helping individuals find appropriate support. The key here is that all approaches should be objective, neutral and non-judgmental to outcome, and focused on empowering the individual to be active in discovering and understanding their own identity.

Historically, conversion therapy efforts have been grounded in an anti-LGBTQ2 ideology with the underlying belief that LGBTQ2 people are pathological, disordered or sinful: in short, needing a so-called cure or correction away from deviance into normalcy.

Second, Bill C-6, as drafted, only prevents forced conversion therapy for adults. Because of the clear evidence of harm, and the lack of research evidence of efficacy, the notion of informed consent is not a possible justification for conversion therapy. Given the well-documented and known harms of conversion therapy, it is a reasonable limitation to restrict so-called consenting adults from engaging in conversion therapy practices.

The government has an obligation to protect all individuals from known or reasonably foreseeable harms and dangers, which is why there are strict consumer protection laws and numerous medical and health regulations in Canada. Clearly, restrictions are reasonable and justifiable limitations on individual rights and freedoms. As notable examples, Quebec's Bill 70 and many municipal bylaws apply to all ages, individuals or groups.

Lastly, it is imperative that the federal government work with survivors and LGBTQ2 civil society organizations to establish an education program and compensation fund to support victims of conversion therapy. Pursuing legal recourse through the Criminal Code of Canada sets a very high bar, and support is needed.

Thank you.

[Matt Ashcroft, Co-Founder and Human Rights and Social Justice Advisor, CT Survivors]

First of all, thank you to Randall Garrison and his team for inviting me to speak. It feels quite good that we have developed a great relationship since March. I'm thankful that you spoke with Erika Muse and me about the next steps for Bill C-6.

This bill is extremely important to survivors of conversion therapy practices, including me, because I know first-hand the harm that can be done from conversion therapy practitioners, even though they do not fully identify with the vocabulary of “conversion therapy”.

Before I get into my speech, I'm going to say the first names and the last initials of the folks who were in my conversion therapy camp, honouring their names and honouring their confidentiality. Those names are/were: John S., Jay C., CJ or Calvin James W., Adam W., Steven M., Jerry M., Dean K., Rick S. and Rocky M. I do not know if you are here or not, but just so you know, I think about your well-being every day.

To my brothers and sister, Milton, Marlon, Makye and Myanna, I am glad that I have a relationship with you again. You have all grown into great people, and I'm glad you accept me for me. I love you always. Never forget that.

Now that I got that out of the way, I'm going to go into the heart of my speech. If you really care about what I say, you will listen with an open mind and an open heart.

Talk is cheap. Doing this process without conversing with conversion therapy survivors is quite sad. It is sad because I'm a human being who experienced this. When there are press interviews about having the best legislation in the world and you use conversion therapy survivors as a prop to make you look good, it hurts. Furthermore, it is something that I'm used to, because in conversion therapy we were used as success stories.

Not only am I grieving this, but I am grieving that this bill will not protect the Canadians it claims to protect. The Sex Now survey estimates that 47,000 people have experienced conversion therapy practices. If only 35% of the folks are under the age of 18, it means that this bill protects only 16,450 Canadians, leaving out two-thirds of the population. We need to do our best to protect as many queer, trans and non-binary Canadians as possible.

Talk is cheap. Canadian government, do you really want to be the best in the world and protect the LGBTQ2IA+ folks like you say you do? The last time I remember, when St. Albert had done their conversion therapy bylaw, you wanted the provincial governments to do their own bans and not touch it federally. Where's the transparency in what you were doing?

If you really want to take some action, here are the first steps that I recommend you take.

Australia's Victorian government worked extremely hard on their bill. It is the most comprehensive bill in the world. Thank you to Nathan Despott, co-founder of the organization Brave Network Melbourne, for his words of wisdom. I have learned a lot from having global conversations on what other countries are doing. I will reiterate the exact wording on his social media.

Number one, “It will ban all conversion practices, delivered by anyone to anyone, regardless of whether they are paid or unpaid, delivered by a professional or non-professional, or delivered to an adult or a child. It will also ban 'inducing' a person to undergo conversion practices, as well as referrals (regardless of whether professional or non-professional). There will be a criminal penalty for all of these things when injury to health (eg. mental health) can be proven. If the criminal threshold can't be met, it will go through a civil process led by the Victorian Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Commission (VEOHRC). This will not require mediation of any kind. VEOHRC will be able to investigate and provide penalties. Failure to comply will also lead to criminal penalties.”

Number two, “It will be a criminal offence to advertise paid or unpaid(!) conversion practices.”

Number three, “It will be a criminal offence to try to get around the law by taking a person to another state.” In our case, that's a province or territory, or outside the country.

Number four, “Adults will not be deemed able to consent to participate in conversion practices, i.e., 'Informed consent' is not possible.”

You cannot consent to abuse. If every medical association deems that conversion therapy practices are discredited and unproven, you should have no issues including adults.

It is time for the government to be more transparent and to protect queer, trans and non-binary Canadians, whom you claim to ally with.

While we're on the subject, you will also need to include trans conversion therapy into legislation, or incorporate trans medical malpractice in future legislation.

This is not a game. This is our lives.

Thank you.

[Isabelle D'Souza, Legislative Counsel, House of Commons]

Good morning, everyone.

My name is Isabelle D'Souza. I am the legislative counsel assigned to Bill C-6 for the purpose of drafting amendments.

I am here today to tell you a little about the drafting process itself. I strongly encourage you to send me your amendment requests as soon as possible, in your own words, even if your proposals aren't entirely concrete yet. I will transform your instructions into legislative text in order to produce the desired legal effects.

I will also inform you if your proposals raise legal, jurisdictional or charter issues, and I will suggest alternatives, if possible. Keep in mind that all of our exchanges are confidential and non-partisan.

Note that the amendment process is like a miniature version of the private members' bills drafting process, for those who are familiar with that. We go through a draft, approval, proofreading, translation and revision of each amendment. This process can sometimes be lengthy, depending on the complexity of the requests or the volume of requests received, and because we sometimes draft amendments for several bills at the same time, it can take several hours or even days to arrive at a final product.

For those reasons, do send me your requests for amendments as soon as possible. I understand the deadline for submission is December 9. That date is not that far away. Do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions or concerns. I am here to help.

Thank you for your time today.

Jacques and I will now take questions about the process, if there are any.

[The Clerk of the Committee, Mr. Jacques Maziade, Legislative Clerk]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I'll take just a few seconds to tell the committee that I will be the legislative clerk responsible for Bill C-6. As you said, my name is Jacques Maziade. If the members of the committee want to have information about the admissibility of their amendments, don't hesitate to send them to me.

Committee members can also contact me if they have any questions concerning a clause-by-clause study of the bill.

My contact information is in the memorandum that the clerk sent to all committee members last week.

Madam Chair, I would now like to turn things over to my colleague, legislative counsel Isabelle D'Souza.

[The Chair, Liberal, Iqra Khalid]

I welcome our witnesses who are here today. Thank you for your patience.

We have with us today, in our second panel on Bill C-6, Matt Ashcroft, Dr. Kristopher Wells and Dr. Kenneth Zucker, all appearing as individuals.

We have representatives from Pour les Droits des Femmes du Québec: Ghislaine Gendron and Dr. James Cantor, who is an adviser for that organization.

Before we go into our round of five minutes per witness for their opening remarks, we'll quickly go to Jacques Maziade, who is our legislative clerk, and Isabelle D'Souza, who is legislative counsel, for very brief remarks on proposing amendments and how that's going to work.

Please, go ahead.

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

Thank you, through you, Madam Chair, to the member for the question.

I would like to begin by saying that I was very pleased to see that every single member of this committee, from every single party, voted in favour of Bill C-6 in the House, and having it sent to committee. I'm hopeful that we will continue to work together to send this bill back to the House in short order. What this shows is that we all agree that any systematic effort to change someone's sexual orientation, gender identity or gender expression, in particular that of a child, is unacceptable in our communities and should be criminalized.

The bill we have here does exactly that, and lays the foundation for the elimination of this harmful and destructive practice in our country. I know there is still a lot of work to do when it comes to getting LGBTQ2 Canadians to a place where they can live out their lives freely, like most Canadians do, without the threat of violence or discrimination. As the minister responsible for inclusion, and as an ally, I will continue to work with LGBTQ2 communities and lead our government's commitment to stand up for LGBTQ2 rights. LGBTQ2 rights are human rights.

I would say in a short answer to the member that I'm very confident that this is an essential step to building a consciously inclusive Canada.

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

I'm repeating myself, but I think we need to structure these practices. I'm not saying that the bill is unnecessary, quite the contrary. I'm saying that there is a grey area and that it will be very difficult to define it. There will be differing decisions in the courts as a result of each of these issues.

I am among those who think that the courts need to have some latitude, but I also think that the legislator needs to make the laws as clear as possible. Here, my view is that room for interpretation is very broad.

That being said, there is another aspect that bothers me, which is the age of consent. There is discussion of "under the age of 18 years". In Quebec, however, the Civil Code provides that children can make decisions with respect to their health at 14 years of age. This is specified more precisely in section 14 of the Civil Code of Quebec

How do you reconcile the legislator's position in BillC-6 and the Civil Code of Quebec's stance on the age of consent? If you can' t reconcile it, can you explain this decision?

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

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Minister Lametti and Minister Chagger, for being here and for your presentations regarding Bill C-6.

We have heard from some stakeholders who are concerned that good-faith conversations to help individuals navigate their sexuality will be captured by this bill. Whether intentional or not, there is significant concern that this bill will capture those good-faith conversations.

When this bill was first introduced, language on the justice department's website stated that it would not affect:

...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.

There is a consensus in Canadian society that trying to forcibly change a person's sexual orientation or gender should be banned. Can I first ask the justice department officials if it would be problematic to simply include the language that was on the justice department's website, or similar language, in the bill for greater certainty?

[David Lametti, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Dear colleagues, I'm in Ottawa and am accordingly taking part in this meeting on traditional Algonquin territory.

I am pleased to be speaking with you today about the criminal law reforms in Bill C-6, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (conversion therapy).

The nearly unanimous support that led to the referral of Bill C-6 to this committee reflects its vital importance. I would like to thank everyone who spoke courageously about their own experiences of discrimination. These are the realities of LGBTQ2 people that give us a better understanding of why Bill C-6 is so essential to the protection of their dignity and equality.

More specifically, Bill C-6 and the five new criminal offences it is proposing target a practice that is discriminatory against LGBTQ2 people because, this practice claims that LGBTQ2 individuals can and must change a fundamental part of their identity, namely their sexual orientation or gender identity. This practice has its roots in the erroneous and discriminatory idea that non-heterosexual orientations and non-cisgender identities are illnesses that can be "corrected".

In short, it's origins betray the discriminatory points of view on which the practice is based. These points of view are completely out of sync with modern science. It's not surprising to find that conversion therapy is seen as ineffective, and harmful to those subjected to it.

I will focus on the bill's definition of conversion therapy, because there appears to be some persisting confusion about its scope.

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”. The definition, therefore, has two elements: first, that the conduct at issue amounts to a practice, treatment or service; and second, that the practice, treatment or service is designed to achieve one of the prohibited objectives.

The terms “treatment”, “service” and “practice” are used in the Criminal Code and various other federal and provincial statutes, including in provincial conversation therapy-related statutes' definitions of conversion therapy. For example, P.E.I.'s legislation refers specifically to a “practice, treatment or service”.

Notably, in none of these contexts are these terms defined, largely because the terms have a clear, literal meaning. In Bill C-6's conversion therapy definition, the term “treatment” means a “therapy or procedure used to treat a medical condition”, according to Merriam-Webster. That is how the term is also used and understood in the Criminal Code's mental disorder provisions, for example section 672.59.

The term “service” in this context means “labor that does not produce a tangible commodity”—again, in Merriam-Webster. The term is also used in this way in the human trafficking provisions, whereby traffickers extract a “labour or service” from their victims, as in section 279.04 of the Criminal Code. The term is also found in the Cannabis Act, to refer to using the “services” of youth in the commission of cannabis-related offences, or to services related to cannabis in the context of commercial activity.

The term “practice” means “a repeated or customary action”, again in Merriam-Webster. The term is also used in this way in the Criminal Code's illegal betting provisions, section 203, and the animal cruelty provisions, section 445.2.

All of these terms imply an established or formalized intervention, one that is generally offered to the public or a segment of the public. A mere conversation cannot, therefore, be considered a practice, service or treatment, unless it forms part of a formalized intervention, such as a talk therapy session.

The second part of the definition reduces its scope still more. The practices, services and treatments need to be specifically designed to achieve clearly defined objectives. That's why the definition uses the terms "heterosexual," "cisgender," and "non-heterosexual". More precisely, to be covered by the definition, the intervention must be designed to change a person's sexual orientation to heterosexual, or their gender identity to cisgender, or to repress or reduce non-heterosexual attraction or sexual behaviour.

This means that the practices, services or treatments designed to achieve other objectives, such as abstinence from all sexual activity, combatting sexual dependency or criminal sexual behaviour—such as child sexual assault—are not clearly covered by the definition. Legitimate medical or therapeutic practices cannot enter into the definition either, such as interventions designed to support a person's gender transition, careful observation of young people whose gender identity does not match the sex assigned to them at birth, or detransition for those who choose.

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

Madam Chair and members of the committee, I would like to start by acknowledging that I am joining you from Waterloo, Ontario, the traditional territory of the Anishinabe, Haudenosaunee, and Neutral people.

Thank you for inviting me to appear before you to discuss Bill C-6 alongside my colleague, the Honourable David Lametti, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada.

Conversion therapy practices are based on the misguided idea that a person’s sexual orientation, gender identity or gender expression can and should be changed to fit a narrow-minded view of what is normal.

This idea is not only wrong, but harmful, and this kind of practice has no place in our society.

The Government of Canada must always stand up for those who are being attacked or persecuted simply for being who they are, and for those who are being prevented from living their lives fully, free from discrimination and violence. It is our duty to protect the rights and freedoms of all Canadians, and to build a country where everyone feels safe, welcome, and included.

Promoting, protecting and increasing diversity and inclusion in Canada are fundamental parts of my mandate as Minister of Diversity and Inclusion and Youth. I am fully committed to these objectives and to supporting LGBTQ2 communities from coast to coast to coast.

The changes to the Criminal Code proposed in Bill C-6 support and protect LGBTQ2 individuals by criminalizing coercive and systematic efforts to change a person's sexual orientation, gender identity or gender expression into something or someone they are not.

There have been some comments about what this bill would or wouldn't do. I want to be absolutely clear. This bill does not criminalize a person's faith or individual values. This bill does not criminalize exploratory conversations with your kids, students or mentees. This bill targets forced and coordinated efforts to change someone into something or someone they are not.

Bill C-6 also allows us to protect equality rights, including religion and LGBTQ2 rights. The bill does not impose a hierarchy of rights.

Over the past year, I've participated in a number of round table discussions with stakeholders about LGBTQ2 issues. These once in-person conversations have become virtual. The COVID-19 pandemic has impacted the world. All Canadians have been affected, and disproportionately certain segments. LGBTQ2 communities are no exception.

Through these discussions, I've heard clearly the toll imposed by conversion therapy. The thought of another generation having to endure conversion therapy crushes my soul. It is essential that we acknowledge the people whose lives have been lost, as well as survivors. I cannot help but also think of the lives still currently being destroyed.

We all have a role to play in building an even better, safer and consciously more inclusive Canada for everyone. We can all work to build a better future, where children, who arrive in this world innocent, free and happy, are not taught bigotry or to be ashamed of who they are. Imagine a Canada where every Canadian can lead an authentic life and be true to oneself. Imagine the contributions they could make.

Last Friday, I had the pleasure of announcing that we had taken a first step towards the very first federal LGBTQ2 action plan with the launch of a federal LGBTQ2 survey. The survey can be accessed until February 28 and will focus on our government's work to improve social, health and economic outcomes in diverse LGBTQ2 communities everywhere in Canada.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau often says that in Canada diversity is one of our greatest strengths. The unique and diverse forms of gender identity, gender expression and sexual orientation are part of that diversity.

I would like to underscore why it is important that we are all coming together constructively today. I want us to be conscious of the human aspect, the individual toll, that is at stake here. This is a reality that many have lived and continue to live in Canada. It is our job as parliamentarians to protect Canadians from this harmful, destructive practice.

Bill C-6 is another step toward true inclusion in Canada. Ridding Canada of conversion therapy is a campaign commitment, and I can personally attest to this being a consistent ask in all round tables I've held with LGBTQ2 communities.

I'd like to thank you for your attention. I look forward to hearing Minister Lametti's comments and then answering your comments and questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Iqra Khalid]

Good morning, everybody.

I call this meeting to order. Welcome to meeting number 13 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, as we endeavour to study Bill C-6.

As for some housekeeping rules, when you're speaking, please speak slowly and clearly so that interpretation is not impacted. When you're not speaking, please keep your microphone on mute. You have the ability to select the interpretation language, at the bottom of your screen, so that you can understand everybody.

We're quite lucky today to have two ministers to speak to Bill C-6. I'd like to welcome the Honourable David Lametti, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada. I'd also like to welcome the Honourable Bardish Chagger, Minister of Diversity and Inclusion and Youth.

We are also joined by some witnesses from the Department of Justice. They are François Daigle, associate deputy minister; and Robert Brookfield, deputy assistant deputy minister. Then we also have a representative from the Department of Canadian Heritage. He is Fernand Comeau, executive director of the LGBTQ2 secretariat.

Ministers, you'll have five minutes each to make your opening remarks, and then we'll go into our two rounds of questions.

We'll start with Minister Chagger, for five minutes.

Go ahead, Minister.

[The Chair, Liberal, Iqra Khalid]

Monsieur Fortin, my apologies. The question I had asked the committee members before you started speaking was specifically about seeking the committee's consent to invite the two ministers who are responsible for Bill C-6 for the second—

[The Chair, Liberal, Iqra Khalid]

Thank you, Mr. Fortin.

As it will be committee business, members are welcome to discuss whatever needs to be discussed during that committee business. Obviously, we need to start with Bill C-6, as well, at the next meeting.

Mr. Virani—

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

As I understand it, we will consider my motion in the first part of the meeting and then move on to Bill C-6.

Is that correct?

[The Chair, Liberal, Iqra Khalid]

Thank you, Mr. Fortin. I was just about to talk about what's going to happen in the next couple of meetings.

I am seeking the consent of the committee to have the first half of the meeting on Thursday for committee business, specifically with respect to Bill C-6. I seek the consent of the committee to be a little proactive and to invite the ministers responsible for Bill C-6 for the second hour of the meeting on Thursday to allow them to speak to Bill C-6 and then answer the members' questions.

Citizenship Act

[Kenny Chiu, Conservative, Steveston—Richmond East, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is yet another substantive virtue signal by the Liberal government. Canadians are growing tired of this cliché. The government consistently fumbles through crisis after crisis, desperate to take attention away from its failings when it comes to Canada. While the government takes pride in this as a form of reconciliation, Canadian indigenous people are still dealing with drinking water and boil water advisories. The government should be putting more time and energy into steps to ensure such advisories are not necessary in the future, that the safety of drinking water is sustainable and that access to basic priorities like clean water is no longer a concern.

For a government to place such emphasis on reconciliation as a core priority, it must be willing to do what is necessary to provide equality of opportunity for all Canadian communities. Like every Canadian hurt throughout the pandemic, first nations people want to work and do what is best. They have had both opportunities denied under the Liberal government. Before the pandemic, Canada's first nations showed that they wanted to work and contribute to Canada. They sought opportunities by supporting the jobs and benefits to the economy that pipeline construction creates.

As the year has progressed, on the opposite side of the country we have seen first nations continue to seek economic advantage by fighting for their moderate livelihood fisheries. In 2020, jobs have been lost and the deficit is skyrocketing. Canada cannot afford more indecision and meaningless gestures. Canadians need to see meaningful actions taken. Canada has a long and complicated relationship with its indigenous peoples, and I readily agree that further steps are required to strengthen our relationship.

Changing the oath of citizenship does not accomplish this great task. Work done should add to strengthening relations within the Canadian social fabric. For failing to act on this, the government will be held to account by the people. Canadians deserve better than another empty promise of sunny ways made by politicians wishing to cater sympathetic favour to reduce proud citizens of this country to tokens cynically used to curry political favour.

As a Conservative member of Parliament, I stand for the improvement of Canada. My party stands for the improvement of this country. We represent many Canadians who want better than a government that consistently failed in its mandates by changing the rules and not providing urgent or transparent actions to address the concerns. No matter the gravity of the issue facing Canada or the concerns of indigenous inhabitants, the government has served the House unappealing word salads in its responses.

Similarly, the bill is but another response devoid of any substance. Perhaps Bill C-6 is something that should be delayed until such time as call to action 93 or more meaningful action, such as ending all boil water advisories and making real, meaningful progress on reconciliation, is accomplished.

Transgender Day of Remembrance

[Wayne Long, Liberal, Saint John—Rothesay, NB]

Madam Speaker, trans rights are human rights. That is why I was proud to vote in favour of Bill C-16, which entrenched trans rights in the Canadian Human Rights Act in the last Parliament. It is also why I was proud to vote in favour of banning conversion therapy by voting in favour of Bill C-6 at second reading last month. However, despite the tremendous progress we have made toward ensuring the protection of the rights of trans Canadians over the past five years, we still have much work to do to ensure that we eradicate transphobia in Canada.

On this Transgender Day of Remembrance, let us reflect upon the lives that have been lost as a result of transphobia, and the hatred, violence and discrimination it fosters. Let us redouble our commitment to tackling the scourge of transphobia and ensuring that the rights of all trans Canadians are protected.

Judges Act

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

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my two daughters, my wife and all the women of Mégantic—L'Érable, Quebec and Canada, I would say that it is of the utmost importance to support Bill C-3. I hope it will receive royal assent as quickly as possible. I am also in favour of Bill C-6, which I will support without any hesitation.

However, what I am thinking about the most right now is the fact that this is the third time that Parliament has tried to adopt the Hon. Rona Ambrose's bill. This is not the time to be playing politics. It is time that we moved forward.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague referred to a study he consulted that demonstrates how certain myths and stereotypes are sometimes perpetuated in the justice system. That is what I took away from it. As I said earlier, it would be good for judges to get away from these outdated cultural constructs.

I do not want to dwell on this too much, but to continue my reflection, I have to wonder whether certain members would not benefit from this kind of training. I am thinking about Bill C-6. As a reminder, that is the bill on conversion therapy. Certain members had some reservations.

I would like to hear from my colleague on that. Does he think certain members should take that training in order to better understand the realities facing sexual minorities?

Business of the House

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I am equally happy, pleased and enthusiastic to answer my colleague's question.

This week, we wrapped up debate at second reading of Bill C-6, on conversion therapy, and Bill C-7, on medical assistance in dying. I would like to thank the opposition members for their co-operation on these bills.

This afternoon, we are continuing the debate on the Bloc Québécois opposition motion.

Tomorrow, we will resume debate at second reading of Bill C-5, regarding a national day for truth and reconciliation.

On Monday, we will start second reading debate of Bill C-8 concerning the implementation of Truth and Reconciliation Commission's calls to action 94.

I would like to inform the House that Tuesday, November 3 and Thursday, November 5 shall be allotted days.

The House resumed from October 27 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.

Criminal Code

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

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.

[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.

[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.

[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?

[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, 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.

[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, 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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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, 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.

[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,

“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, Outremont, QC]

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

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

[Rachel Bendayan, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Given conversion therapy's proven harms and its impact on the most marginalized among us, this bill would define conversion therapy for Criminal Code purposes as “a practice, treatment or service designed to change a person’s sexual orientation to heterosexual or gender identity to cisgender, or to repress or reduce non-heterosexual attraction or sexual behaviour.”

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

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

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

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

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

[Richard Lehoux, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

Madam Speaker, I commend my colleague for her speech.

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

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

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

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

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

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Resilience is what I wish for them.

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

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

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech.

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

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

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

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

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That sounds like a movie.

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

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

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

In Quebec, respect for gender identity and sexual orientation is a value, and conversion therapy violates that value. That is why we will be supporting Bill C-6, which amends the Criminal Code to criminalize the following: causing a person to undergo conversion therapy against the person's will; causing a child to undergo conversion therapy; doing anything for the purpose of removing a child from Canada with the intention that the child undergo conversion therapy outside Canada; advertising an offer to provide conversion therapy; and receiving a financial or other material benefit from the provision of conversion therapy.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The dedication reads:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[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.

[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.

[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, 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.

[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, 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.

[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—

[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, 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.

[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, 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.

[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.

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.

[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.

[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.

[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 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—

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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?

[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, 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.

Business of the House

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I noticed that my colleague came at his gracious question in a roundabout way.

This afternoon, we will continue with the debate on the Conservative Party's motion, of course.

We still have a number of important bills on the legislative agenda, including the MAID bill, the conversion therapy bill and the judicial training bill.

Tomorrow, we will begin debate on Bill C-5, regarding a national day for truth and reconciliation.

Starting on Monday, we will take up the second reading debate of Bill C-6, the bill regarding conversion therapy.

Lastly, I note that Thursday, October 29, will be an allotted day.

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

Thank you very much.

I really appreciate Mark's comments, but I think public trust is what was lost on August 18 in the first place. I think if we're going to use those lines, we should reflect on the government's actions prior to that. Let's not talk about public trust as though we've lost it fully, especially on the Conservative side.

I can tell you that back in the riding of Elgin—Middlesex—London, on this motion put forward, I had people calling me saying thank you, saying we need to hold this government to account. Perhaps they're not calling you in Kingston, but I can tell you that the constituents in Elgin—Middlesex—London are saying bravo and that we need to hold them to account.

There are a couple of things we're talking about. First of all, there is the mandate of this committee. We understand that under Standing Order 32(7), this issue will be coming to the procedure and House affairs committee. As indicated, in some committees people will do a little prestudy. Now, a lot of times that may be moot if this is voted on and doesn't come to the procedure and House affairs committee, but this will not be voted on. We know that this will be referred to our committee. It's not voted on in the House of Commons. It is automatically sent to us at procedure and House affairs. There's not a vote to say that our prestudy is going to be a waste of time.

Actually, when we're talking about documents, well, these are documents that were requested, as I recall, back in July. I wouldn't want to put anyone at risk, but let's not kid ourselves: They've been working on these documents since July 1, when they were requested, and we're now into October.

“Paralyzing of government” is a terrible choice of words. Perhaps it was the paralyzing of Parliament, because that is exactly what this government did with prorogation on August 18. It's fine to say that the government will not be able to do any work because we'll be paralyzing this committee, but I will remind the honourable member that 338 members of Parliament were paralyzed on August 18 due to the prorogation in the first place.

With all of these things, I understand that it took eight days. I understand that this motion was very complex, but we do know that it will be coming to this committee. We are expecting lots of documents, because that is what we've asked for. Prorogation in the middle of a pandemic was absolutely not in the best interests of Canadians. We saw that last week, as we voted at 2:30 in the morning. We needed to have Bill C-2 and Bill C-4 passed. We knew that all of the programs had stopped the weekend before. There is a gap in these programs, and people will only be able to apply on October 11 for these programs. I find it very rich of this member to think that we paralyzed it. The only one who paralyzed the government was the Prime Minister and his staff. I'm very concerned with this.

When we're looking at this, all we're asking is to be able to prestudy the information that will be coming to our committee anyway. I'll also remind you that the only way we're not going to be debating this is if the government decides to prorogue before October 28. Really, at the end of the day, it's either coming to us or it's not. It seems like you're just trying to say no to the inevitable. It's going to happen.

The fact is that if on August 17 and 18 you had asked Canadians why they thought the government prorogued.... I will tell you that in my riding, I had maybe one person who did not think that it was over some of these issues that we have brought up and to do with the WE scandal. We know through finance and ethics and languages that there were lots of issues coming up because of WE. At that time, with the pressure and the heat that was happening in the PMO, that is why government was shut down.

I shouldn't say that is why; maybe prove me otherwise. I shouldn't say that, because obviously some members of the government believe that was not the case and that the prorogation happened because they were resetting.

I'm laughing because we're coming back to Bill C-6, to Bill C-4. We're coming back to a bunch of bills that were actually on the table and were going to start to be debated. There's nothing new from this reset. We are coming back to medical assistance in dying. We are coming back to conversion therapy. We are coming back to things that the government had already pre-tabled in the first session of the 43rd Parliament. We are rehashing what happened in the first session of this Parliament. There is nothing new. Perhaps the member can share with me that we actually had a reset, that we actually did a 180.

That's not what happened. We are starting with the same old, same old. By closing the door on August 18 for the parliamentary committees to ask these tough questions, the government was able to have a break and hope that Canadians had a break and would move forward.

I recognize that none of us wants to put staff members at risk. That is not the plan. We also know that they've been working on these for three months, so let's not use that.

On the cost to produce these things, it's the first time I've ever heard the government say “the cost to produce”. We're asking it to produce documents on a billion-dollar program that was announced—a billion dollars—so don't talk as if this is nickels and dimes here. We're talking here about big dollars that this government was wasting. Being held accountable is exactly what should happen.

I appreciate that the member thinks this is out of order, but at the same time, according to Standing Order 32(7), it is the mandate of this committee to study the prorogation when it comes to procedure and House affairs.

Thank you.

Conversion Therapy

[Kenny Chiu, Conservative, Steveston—Richmond East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the opposition leader is correct in saying “the importance of respecting the rights of my fellow citizens was paramount” and that we as parliamentarians secure the rights of every Canadian, including the LGBT+ community.

I too will be clear. Harmful and coercive conversion therapy that seeks to demean and denigrate people for who are they are is reprehensible, is wrong and must be banned.

In March 2020, the government introduced Bill C-8 to ban the practice. However, the definition in Bill C-8 was so poorly worded, so unsound, that any rational individual would recognize it as an empty virtual signal.

Yesterday, instead of listening to feedback on how to improve the bill's sloppy wording, the government chose to reintroduce it verbatim as Bill C-6.

Ending conversion therapy must be done responsibly, with the spirit of compassion, wholeheartedly in good faith rather than cynically giving token recognition to a community asking for help.

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

Mr. Speaker, the third petition today is timely, as the petitioners are calling for the government to fix the definition in the conversion therapy ban bill. They are calling for the government to ensure that parents can speak to their own children about sexuality and gender, set house rules about sex and relationships, and allow for free and open conversations.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to rise in the House. I want to start by recognizing that the House is located on the traditional lands of the Algonquin Anishinabe people.

Today I rise to present our government's plan for banning the destructive, harmful and deadly practice of conversion therapy.

There should be no place for the destructive, harmful and deadly practice of conversion therapy in Canada. When we ask a young person what they want be when they grow up, they answer an occupation. We do not ask about who they want to be or who they think they might be. Imagine a young person trying to come to terms with their identity, wondering what others will think and having questions about what makes them happy, what makes them feel like themselves and what they see when they look in the mirror.

If they are lucky, some young people may have these conversations with their parents. Some will turn to their friends, to religion or to scripture. Many may seek out help from those who they believe are professionals with credentials and therefore must know best. The answers to these questions help shape a future; they help shape a life. Imagine individuals at their most vulnerable putting all their trust in these people for help. While the pandemic has made us all feel vulnerable at times, imagine living that way every day and carrying that weight. Telling someone they are not who they think we are or that who they are is wrong, abnormal or unnatural has devastating consequences.

The limited Canadian studies we have on this practice confirm that this so-called therapy is happening right here in Canada. It is estimated that over 20,000 LGBTQ2 Canadians have been exposed, and 11% of trans individuals in Canada are survivors. We are indebted to survivors and advocates for their strength in speaking out and shining light on this dark practice.

It is our duty to do everything we can to make a better future for all Canadians.

I hope all members of the House agree with this viewpoint.

That is why within a week of coming back to Parliament we have reintroduced the bill, an act to amend the Criminal Code (conversion therapy), to abolish conversion therapy in Canada. On this side of the House we focus on advancing and protecting LGBTQ2 rights and addressing all forms of discrimination, including hetero-cis–normativity and systemic racism. Under the leadership of the Prime Minister, we believe that with this legislation we are building a society where one accepts people for who they are. We are stating to all people in Canada that it is okay, and they can follow their heart, their faith and be true to themselves.

On this side of the House, we believe that acceptance and diversity are absolute. There are those who refuse to accept that sexual orientation, gender identity and gender expression have been enshrined into Canadian law as part of the Canadian Human Rights Act. It is unfortunate that in 2020 we continue to have to have this debate. LGBTQ2 rights are human rights, full stop.

Together, we can help to create a country where everyone is free to be who they are. LGBTQ2 people are valued members of Canadian society, and we must ensure that Canada is a country where everyone, regardless of their gender expression, gender identity or sexual orientation, can lead a happy and authentic life and be loved.

Criminal Code

[David Lametti, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-6, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (conversion therapy).

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)