Bill C-7 (Historical)

An Act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying)

This enactment amends the Criminal Code to, among other things,
(a) repeal the provision that requires a person’s natural death be reasonably foreseeable in order for them to be eligible for medical assistance in dying;
(b) specify that persons whose sole underlying medical condition is a mental illness are not eligible for medical assistance in dying;
(c) create two sets of safeguards that must be respected before medical assistance in dying may be provided to a person, the application of which depends on whether the person’s natural death is reasonably foreseeable;
(d) permit medical assistance in dying to be provided to a person who has been found eligible to receive it, whose natural death is reasonably foreseeable and who has lost the capacity to consent before medical assistance in dying is provided, on the basis of a prior agreement they entered into with the medical practitioner or nurse practitioner; and
(e) permit medical assistance in dying to be provided to a person who has lost the capacity to consent to it as a result of the self-administration of a substance that was provided to them under the provisions governing medical assistance in dying in order to cause their own death.

Criminal Code

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague from Rivière-du-Nord. I very much admire his ability to make such measured speeches. I have a quick question for him.

I get the impression that, as with Bill C-7, people will vote to please certain religious groups. I do not believe that to be the best approach.

Could my colleague from Rivière-du-Nord talk about the right way to vote on a bill that has this kind of moral impact?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Jonquière. I am pleased to know that I have such a big fan. That is something.

That being said, I think there’s a risk of starting down a slippery slope if we vote the way one religion or another wants us to.

We need to be careful. Religions of all kinds are important. I think that they have a positive impact on many people. I am pleased that there are religious communities, but they should not be telling us how to legislate. That would be a problem and would create conflicts that could never be resolved.

I therefore encourage members to be very careful about making a decision centred on religious beliefs rather than on the facts before us.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a great privilege to speak today on Bill C-6, an act to amend the Criminal Code to criminalize conversion therapy. I also want to say it is an honour to follow the member for Rivière-du-Nord and his excellent comments, as well as my colleague, the member for Saint-Laurent.

I will begin by thanking the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Diversity and Inclusion and Youth for their tremendous work in bringing forward these amendments. They have given members of this House a rare opportunity not only to make lives better, but to save lives. That is work that none of us should take lightly. When this bill ultimately passes, it will make us all proud to be Canadian, and proud to be thoughtful, compassionate and just human beings.

Cutting to the chase, I am going to begin with a very personal story. From a very young age, I knew I was different. I saw the world differently from my friends, and experienced relationships with them differently. My earliest memories of that go back to the age of four or five, when gender norms simply did not align with my view of the world. Toys that I was told I should play with did not interest me, games and activities the other boys loved left me indifferent. My affiliations with boys, while strong and important, left me worried and sometimes afraid. Girls were simply easier, and left me feeling less complicated, less conflicted and more comfortable. Still, I wanted to be the best little boy in the world and did everything I could to be just that.

As I grew up and approached adolescence, my family and friends could tell I was different from other boys in the neighbourhood. Rather than trying to channel me into one way of being, they stood back a notch, were open to conversation, watched and allowed nature to take its course. In adolescence, these relationships with boys became even more scary and girls became even more comfortable for me to spend time with.

While I thought that was a sign, many seemed to think this was a sign of an emerging ladies' man, a very dated term, I recognized nothing could have been further from the truth, as is obvious today. Of course I played the game. In the 1960s and 1970s, it was simply too horrendous to even imagine being anything but a ladies' man. I dated, but preferred to do so in groups. I had girlfriends, and I now realize they were long-suffering ones. I had intimate relationships with women, but it was never me. It was someone others hoped I would be, someone others thought I would be, but it was not me.

Wanting to be the best little boy in the world, I did not want to disappoint. I filled my life with events and activities. I kept myself busy on the rowing team, skiing, being a political organizer and organizing events. I would hope to be able to plead being too busy when asked why I was not settling down with the right girl. Meanwhile, I was in a personal hell. My attractions to men were real, and I was in deep conflict.

In my early 20s, I finally sought help. I asked to see a United Church minister, not my own but a neighbouring clergyman. Don White agreed to see me, and I poured out 20 years of feelings, thoughts, anxieties and pain to him. He listened. He did not judge. This was in the late 1970s. While legal, homosexuality was far from accepted. Gay men and lesbians were made fun of, shunned and often hated. We could lose jobs, families, homes and even our lives. However, Don White listened. He recognized I was in great pain and with his wonderful wife, Barbara, they helped me find a therapist to talk to.

However, that therapist did not listen, he judged. He told me I had a choice to make, between an easy life of acceptance, career success and of being a father like he was, or I could follow my instincts and have a life of misery and pain, professional risk and of disappointing my family. It simply did not line up with who I knew I was at my core.

I went back to Don White who listened and simply held me. He said that, yes, my life would be more difficult if I came out as a gay man but that I had to trust my instincts, and he would do what he could to help.

It would take a few more years until I told my parents. Finally in the summer of 1983, I met with them and talked with them. They were liberal to the core, loyal and liberal to the core, of the good United Church tradition. I never doubted that they would love me, but I was still worried. I sat down and said I had something important to tell them. I started to cry. My mother asked me if she could ask me a question. She asked if I thought I were gay. I said that I knew I was gay. She said, “Oh, thank goodness, I was worried you had cancer or that something awful had happened.”

We laughed, and both my parents embraced me and said they would do whatever they could to make my life happy and healthy. A few years later I would have to tell them I had cancer, and they held me the same way and loved me just as much.

Not every child has a parent like I had. Not every young gay man or boy, young lesbian, two-spirited person, bisexual or transperson has a parent like I had. They do not have a church or a pastor like I had, or teachers or mentors or employers or colleagues or friends or a community like I had. In fact, many have the opposite experience.

That is why we need the amendment to the Criminal Code proposed in Bill C-6. We need to protect the most vulnerable when they need it the most. We need to ensure that every person in this country knows they are free to be who they are and to become their own self as God or nature intended them to be, free to live, love and express themselves in ways true to their very core.

This bill is more than symbolic. It is very real in its impact. It would criminalize activities designed to attempt to change one's identity, no more than that, and suppress or reduce their same-sex attractions or sexual behaviours. It would ensure that no one can cause a minor to undergo a therapy designed to change who they are or how they feel. It would ensure they do not have to undergo such processes against their will. It would ensure that no one could make money from these so-called therapies. These are real and critically important measures that the government is recommending.

This bill also carries symbolic weight, and that is what I think scares some in the opposition who may be inclined to vote against it. I heard the Leader of the Opposition express his concerns about conversion therapy, and I thank him for that. I also heard him wiggle around and try to support the far right wing of his party. I think they are worried about this bill because it normalizes LGBTQ people. It says that we are okay. It says that we do not need to change and should not be forced to change. It continues the long evolutionary process, which began in the 1960s by the late Pierre Elliott Trudeau, of telling me and showing me that I am okay.

My hope is that opposition members will read the very fine speeches by the member for Calgary Nose Hill and the member for Elgin—Middlesex—London to ensure that we are unanimous in sending this bill to the next step. It is why I decided to tell my personal story today. However, it is not just my story. It is the story of a significant portion of our population who needs to hear from the House and the government not only that nothing is wrong with them, but that it is wrong for people to try to change them from being who they are.

We have come a long way since former prime minister Trudeau opened the legal door for people like me. Even since, the Prime Minister offered an apology for the way successive governments, Liberal and Conservative, have treated people like me. However, we still have a long way to go.

I read with interest that the new Parliament of New Zealand is the gayest parliament in the world, now with 9% of its members being from the LGBTQ community. It surpassed the U.K., with its 7%, or 45 members. Our House has only four openly gay members, or just slightly over 1%, which does not look at all like the Canadian population. It is still lonely for those of us who are different. Perhaps the bill would be a little easier to pass if the House and our government looked and sounded just a little more like Canada. Let us all work on that.

I close where I began, thanking the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Diversity and Inclusion and Youth for bringing these amendments forward. I thank hon. members for taking the time to read this bill and talk to the community, and for some of the very magnificent speeches I have heard. I also thank people for listening so well today. I think many of my colleagues, who may not have lived my story but have now heard it, are now helping all of us. I thank them and am glad they are prepared to act.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for having the courage to share his story.

There is one thing that concerns me from listening to the debate today: It is clear that private conversations are not necessarily protected in the bill. The member has had conversations with ministers, and others have had the same types of conversations and have chosen differently, which is their right. I know that ministers in my riding are very concerned not only about private conversations, but about the fact that the bill does not protect their right to speak in a public square about the things they feel, whether or not they are the opinions of others.

I wonder if the member would be willing to support an amendment to clarify in this legislation the need for private conversations and the need for ministers to be able to speak in a public square as they wish.

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

Mr. Speaker, I cannot say I would support that kind of amendment, because I think it is very dangerous. I think this legislation is very carefully worded to ensure that those kinds of conversations can happen.

Conversations can generally happen, absolutely. What this legislation does is ensures that no harmful conversations directed at changing someone's sexual orientation will get in the way of someone's full and natural development. That is what this is about.

This calls into question what happens when rights bump into each other, and I will take the side of the most vulnerable. I will take the side of those who are most likely to be hurt. I think this legislation does that, and I would urge the clergy to get in line with it.

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for that wonderful testimony. It shows that, when it comes to identity issues, it is always better to accept someone than to turn one's back on them. I think that goes without saying.

However, I find this debate has taken on a 1960s vibe. Members are trying to sell this, when it is an issue that should have been dealt with a long time ago.

Obviously, we support this bill. Conversion therapy is something that does not make sense. There is an industry of sects that organize large church services where they try to pray the gay away. There is nothing therapeutic about those services. Of course, it does not make any sense. There is nothing medical about them and they cause more problems than they solve.

I would like to know why something like this was not done before. Why, in March 2019, did the government say that this was impossible? The government said that it was impossible to ban this type of therapy.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his question.

I think it is a process. This is a big step forward for the liberation of people who are gay, lesbian and trans, and I think it is necessary to do something differently at each stage.

I have a lot of patience for my colleagues from all parties, who can change their minds about the opportunities everyone should have. All people must have a chance to make a big change, and I hope that is another step we will take with these amendments.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have had the pleasure of serving with the hon. member for the better part of a decade, and I want to thank him for a powerful, emotionally affecting and very courageous speech that really spoke to the profound importance of this bill. It also highlighted how damaging and dangerous stigmatization is.

I want to pivot to something else. In another piece of federal legislation or policy, there is a ban on blood donations from men who have sex with men, which is not based on science but on stereotype. We allow a sexually promiscuous heterosexual man who engages in dangerous activities to donate blood, but two gay men in a loving, stable, monogamous relationship are not allowed. The government still maintains a ban that stops men who have sex with men from donating blood, based on the most base stigmatization.

I wonder if the member would agree with me that it is time to end this discriminatory ban.

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

Mr. Speaker, I agree 100%.

Not long ago, earlier in the year, I walked by Northlea Public School in my riding. There was a blood donor clinic there. Some of the kids asked me if I was there to give blood. I said, “No, I am not allowed to give blood.” It is wrong that I am not allowed to give blood, and it is a loss to Canadian society that I am not allowed to give blood.

I will not stop working, even with my own government, until the issue around blood donations is based on behaviour, not on orientation. It is not scientific. It is not right. It is wrong, and it is part of the legacy of discrimination. I am really glad the member asked me that question because I wanted to get that out.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Resuming debate.

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

The question is on the motion.

If a member of a recognized party present in the House wants to request a recorded vote or request that the amendment be passed on division, I invite them to rise and so indicate to the Chair.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would request a recorded vote.

And one or more members having risen:

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

A member having risen, pursuant to order made on Wednesday, September 23, the division stands deferred until Wednesday, October 28, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.

The House resumed from October 21 consideration of the motion that Bill C-7, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying), be read the second time and referred to a committee.