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 forcibly 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.
