Debates of Oct. 26th, 2020

Criminal Code

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

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

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

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

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

When the original legislation was tabled on March 9, the Liberals' press release stated that the legislation “would not criminalise private conversations in which personal views on sexual orientation, sexual feelings or gender identity are expressed such as where teachers, school counsellors, pastoral counsellors, faith leaders, doctors, mental health professionals, friends or family members”.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, according to the Canadian Psychological Association, conversion or reparative therapy can result in negative outcomes, such as distress, anxiety, depression, negative self-image, a feeling of personal failure, difficulty sustaining relationships and sexual dysfunction. It can even lead to suicide.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

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

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

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

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

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

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

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

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

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

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

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why are the Liberals not going all the way?

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

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

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

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

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

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

The hon. member for Yukon.