On Oct. 28, the House of Commons voted at Second Reading in favour of Bill C-6, a bill that aims to ban conversion therapy. Conversion therapy is the practice of using violent and coercive means to change a person’s sexual orientation or gender identity.

Historically these practices having involved things like electric-shock “therapy,” heterosexual pornography, forced confinement, etc.

Conversion therapy has been discredited by experts and is obviously contrary to the dignity of the human person. Among parliamentarians we have a clear consensus that conversion therapy is bad. However, there is a pressing problem with how the bill is currently written that is being overlooked.

Bill C-6 defines conversion therapy as “a practice, treatment or service designed to change a person’s sexual orientation to heterosexual or gender identity to cisgender, or to repress or reduce non-heterosexual attraction or sexual behaviour.”

This is a bad definition. If passed unamended, advice or counsel promoting the reduction of sexual behaviour could be criminal. Any support for transgendered people seeking to de-transition back to their birth gender would be considered conversion therapy. A parent telling a teenaged son that he cannot have sex in the house “aims to reduce sexual behaviour” and could fall into the definition. A Christian pastor preaching to his congregation about aspects of traditional Christian sexual morality could become illegal.

The Liberal government says this bill will not criminalize these practices. But the text of the bill suggests that they would be. And so, we need to fix the definition of conversion therapy in this bill so that things which are not conversion therapy do not get inadvertently banned.

As a result of the vote on the 28th, Bill C-6 now moves to the committee stage, where the bill will be further studied by Members of Parliament in the Justice Committee. Committee members often hold special meetings with experts and members of the public to receive further insight into the implications of the bill and how it can be improved.

This is a critical point in the legislative process. Here, the committee has the opportunity to propose amendments to the bill. These amendments are especially critical given how the debate during Second Reading revealed major flaws in the bill as written. Once amendments are made, the bill returns to the House where MPs debate and vote once more. It is incredibly important that the members of the committee do what is right and fix the definition. Without an amendment, this bill would undermine the ability of parents, faith leaders, and mentors to advise or counsel others with respect to sexual behaviour.

You can find out more about this issue and take action by visiting FixTheDefinition.ca. You can also watch and share this video (https://fb.watch/1vPt5qC7Hl/), where Emmanuel shares his story about how this bill would have impacted his life. 

Garnett Genuis is Member of Parliament for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan in Alberta.