Debates of Oct. 27th, 2020

Criminal Code

[Emmanuella Lambropoulos, Liberal, Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I came from a school with a wide array of backgrounds and a lot of my students definitely felt comfortable expressing themselves and being different. It was a good thing to be unique at that school. I definitely think our generation has a lot to learn, and I hope that this generation can teach future generations yet again to open their minds and to make the world a better place for everyone.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by confirming that the Bloc Québécois will wholeheartedly support Bill C-6 on conversion therapy.

In our opinion, conversion therapy has always been disrespectful toward our young people and it is perfectly legitimate to do away with it. In fact, I would say it is high time we did something about this.

Bill C-6 concerns children under the age of 18, the advertising of an offer to provide conversion therapy, forcing someone to undergo conversion therapy against their will and material benefit from providing conversion therapy. Once the bill is passed and the law takes effect, it will no longer be possible to cause a child to undergo conversion therapy. That is perfect, because that is what we want.

Yesterday, I heard some Conservative members saying that we should not prevent a father from having a healthy discussion with his son about the son's sexual orientation or a teacher from having such a discussion with a student. That is not at all what this bill is about. It is important to understand that because it could change the way members vote on this bill.

Let me draw a parallel with other crimes. For example, robbing a bank is a crime. Similarly, forcing a 12-year-old boy to undergo conversion therapy would be prohibited, if the bill passes. Conspiracy to rob a bank is also a crime. Hopefully conspiring to force a minor to undergo conversion therapy will also be considered a crime.

However, if a teacher discusses the importance of not stealing and the importance of honesty with his or her students, that would not be a crime. If a teacher discusses how bank robberies are carried out and various possible scenarios with his or her students, that is not a crime. These things are taught in police academies. Talking about a bank robbery is not the same as conspiring to rob a bank. Similarly, having a discussion with a child about sexual orientation or conversion therapy is not a crime nor is that, in itself, conversion therapy.

Imagine that a child tells his parents or a teacher that he heard conversion therapy is available in such and such a U.S. state and he wants to go there to get treatment. In that case, the parent or teacher could tell him that type of therapy is against the law, but they could also have a healthy discussion with the child and find out why he wants to undergo such therapy.

I have met people who had a lot to say about conversion therapy. They told me about a watchful waiting approach and that sounded like a good idea to me. The idea is to listen to the young person who has questions about their sexual orientation or gender identity. By getting them to talk, we might help them to better understand themselves, but we must resist influencing them, because that is not allowed.

When a young girl feels like a young boy or a young boy feels like a young girl and wants to wear a dress, is that a bad thing, something that needs to be fixed? Bill C-6 says no.

We must let children be children. We must let them live their lives. It is healthy and normal to wonder and ask questions. Adults should not be attempting to change a child's gender identity or sexual orientation. I find this to be not only legitimate, but also highly advisable.

In fact, it is so advisable that a bill was introduced in the National Assembly of Quebec just last week. Bill 70 regarding conversion therapy was introduced last Thursday. However, since Quebec is very respectful of jurisdictions and does not want to interfere in criminal matters, it will not tell Ottawa what is or is not a crime. Still, Quebec does have legal jurisdiction over professional associations. It said it would amend the professional code and that a professional who provides conversion therapy would be committing an act derogatory to the dignity of his or her profession and therefore could be disciplined by his or her professional organization. Personally, I applaud this bill.

I hope it will pass in Quebec, because it is in the same vein as our Bill C-6. We want to let kids be kids. We do not want to stop them from questioning. It is healthy to question, and we want them to be able to do so.

I want to make a final point about the religious aspect of conversion therapy. That phrase comes up a lot in conversations about religious extremism. I am not targeting any particular religion, but the leader of any religion, whether we are talking about imams, priests, parish priests or rabbis, have a lot of influence on their flock, as we say back home. These people also need to respect a potential ban on conversion therapy. They are not prohibited from having discussions on the topic, but they are prohibited from trying to influence parishioners.

We have to make that distinction. Based on what I have heard so far, this may be our main sticking point. Members must not confuse the right of a parent or teacher to have a healthy discussion about gender identity or sexual orientation with the act of trying to influence a person's gender identity or sexual orientation.

I will stop there. I hope we can all agree and pass this bill quickly at second reading so that the committee can study it and it can be brought into force.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is encouraging to see support for this legislation from members of the Bloc. The member raises a number of concerns. I think those will be dealt with after the bill gets through second reading and goes to committee. It should be an interesting committee, to say the very least, as I am sure it will want to hear a number of presenters. The minister himself has indicated his willingness to listen to what opposition parties have to say.

I am wondering if the member could indicate whether the Bloc has some amendments in mind at this time.

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

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

I think we both want to achieve the same thing with this bill.

As to amendments the Bloc Québécois might propose, I cannot answer that question today. We usually have some. There are often little last-minute changes, but that does not really worry me. Insofar as we agree on the broad strokes, I think we will be able to agree on what one might call the finer points of the bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I heard the member mention on several occasions what this legislation does not prohibit. He mentioned, for example, consultations with teachers and religious leaders. I am wondering if he would be in favour of an amendment that would put into the legislation what it does not prohibit.

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

Mr. Speaker, let me first clarify something. My colleague mentioned that I had said that consultations with teachers would be allowed. That is not at all what I said. We are not talking about consultations. When we talk about consultations, we are talking about therapy. I was saying that the bill does not ban conversations.

That said, I think the amendment proposed by my colleague could be very dangerous. Based on a principle of legal interpretation, when examples are given, this defines a concept, and anything not defined is therefore excluded. An enumeration, then, is always dangerous. One must be very careful, for it is a doubled-edged sword. At this stage, I do not think there is any point in enumerating what would not be prohibited.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my hon. colleague's support for this legislation, which we in the NDP support as well. He spoke about feedback he has received from his constituents. Has my colleague heard from anyone who felt the proposed bill does not go far enough? If so, in what ways do his constituents feel the bill fell short of the mark?

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

Mr. Speaker, I would tell my colleague that there are always people who think a bill does not go far enough and others who think it goes too far. What is important is to find a compromise, some middle ground. I think that Bill C-6 as it stands now is right in that middle ground, between the different points of view. It is important for children to be able to grow up without being influenced or without someone trying to turn them into someone they are not. However, it is also important for society as a whole to be able to discuss issues. We must find a balance in our measures.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I agree 100%.

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

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

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Resuming debate.

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

The question is on the motion.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I would request a recorded vote.

And one or more members having risen:

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

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

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

[Jenica Atwin, Green, Fredericton, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I recently celebrated one year since I became an MP. In my role, I have had the incredible opportunity to learn every day. I listen to people, organizations and advocates, and the discussion around medical assistance in dying is truly about listening. Today I will add my voice to an issue that affects us all.

Talking about death and dying is still taboo in our society, yet each of us must face it, not only for ourselves, but also for the ones we love. This conversation does not come easily, but for those whose time is closer than others, we owe it to them to listen and to act in passing this bill.

The debate on Bill C-7 has been passionate, emotional and raw, and rightly so. I wish to congratulate and offer my gratitude to each member of the House for their efforts on behalf of their constituents, family members and friends. Each of us has been speaking with our community members to learn their thoughts and hear their stories. Human agency has been on display, and the speeches before the House have shown professionalism and integrity, with a deep commitment to the fundamental rights of Canadians.

Sometimes we need a reminder that our constitution is a beautiful thing. It is the crux of why I am so proud to be Canadian, and why I feel so honoured to have the privilege to defend and uphold the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

I remember first learning in depth about the charter as a grade 11 student. I remember the way it made me feel, the way it made me think about our lives and our interactions with one another, and the empowerment that it brought into focus. It was right around this time that I knew I wanted to some day to be involved in politics. While that seems like ages ago, it was only recently I learned about the urgency in amending our laws specifically concerning the issues within the legislation on medical assistance in dying and how it interacts with the charter.

I sat with it, without lived experience, and I thought of many what-if situations. I thought of the various scenarios and scary predicaments I would not want to face out of the risk of overstepping constitutional rights, if mistakes were made. I heard some of these same concerns from many stakeholders, from those who are concerned about how this would impact people living with disabilities or with suicidal ideation. I have listened to those concerns, and filtered this legislation through those important lenses. While I know some of these people may still disagree with me, I want them to know that I am confident this legislation strikes a balance and it will not have the impact they fear.

I also sought out opportunities to speak to individuals who had a personal connection to this legislation, and as it turns out, many people are willing to discuss their wish for dignity in dying, as well as their concerns about the current process and these proposed amendments. These individuals shared with me their efforts to pursue their right to bodily autonomy in their final moments on earth. In the powerful conversations I have had, the specific issues of advance requests and mental competency, as well as the discretionary role of a foreseeable death, were the exact hurdles to the peace of mind that would come from having control over their own death and final control over the pain.

There are Canadians right now who are suffering intolerably and enduringly. They already have do-not-resuscitate orders. They have made final wills and testaments, and have pre-paid for funeral arrangements. They have demonstrated their competence in preparing for death. They should be trusted to make a decision about the nature of their own death as well. If we rob them of this opportunity, then we have failed them. We have allowed our laws to overstep into bodily integrity and autonomy, an infringement of our protected right to security of the person.

I also want to address the language of “assisted suicide” and “euthanasia”. Our words are important, and it is important to remember that this bill is to amend a bill on medical assistance in dying. We know that a medical prognosis is the safeguard. It is the authoritative layer that protects individuals who are vulnerable.

The reality of the situation facing real Canadians is that co-occurring mental and physical illness is extremely common and should not be a barrier to anyone's right to bodily autonomy at the end of their life. Severe depression often accompanies other medical illnesses, and has a high rate of occurrence among persons with disabilities. As a further example, an individual may be bipolar and later develop terminal cancer. This pre-existing condition, likely to flare up in such a stressful time, cannot be the reason to deny the will of an individual to determine their final moments.

In conclusion, I remain firm that mental illness in Canada requires rapid access to effective mental health services, including in-person counselling and access to psychiatrists where necessary, as well as wraparound community supports. We also need to set national standards for long-term care to ensure that the facilities intended to house older adults are providing a quality of life that keeps them healthy and active throughout their later years, and we need to invest in robust palliative care to ensure there is dignity in living, even through those final difficult days.

I think of Hospice Fredericton and the peaceful, beautiful experience people and their families have in that environment. The option to welcome death peacefully should be an option for those who want it. We must also value and listen to Canadians with disabilities and their advocates. We can do all of these things and still pass this bill.

I do not believe that MAID introduces the risk that some patients will be forced to receive this procedure against their wishes. There are preventive measures capable of eliminating this risk. I do believe that my duty to uphold the Charter of Rights and Freedoms means passing legislation like this to uphold security of the person for all Canadians at all moments during their lives.

I will be proudly voting for this legislation. This is about justice. It is about empathy. It is about choosing to respect one's wishes and not interfering in that decision. It is about giving peace of mind to people, so the final chapter in their lives can be written in confidence, and their story can be concluded according to their own volition.

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

Mr. Speaker, this is very important legislation, which, in essence, comes out of a court ruling. The debate in the House really began on this issue after the last federal election, again due to a Supreme Court ruling. Listening to the many speeches on this has been very touching. I suspect it will receive unanimous support, at least I am hopeful it will.

In debate, a lot of members have been talking about related issues, such as the importance of palliative care and the need to do more in that area. To that extent, I would ask my colleague what her thoughts are on how important it is for the federal government to be working with provincial governments in dealing with some of the issues we have before us, including palliative care.