Maëlys McArdle

Conservatives in Parliament: A Case Study with Bill C-6

—

by

Maëlys McArdle
in ,

Passing through the federal legislature is Bill C-6, a law to make involuntary conversion therapy illegal. It addresses a real need: 8% of trans and non-binary youth 14-24 have undergone conversion therapy.

The bill passed second reading and is now with the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights in the House of Commons. Of surprise was that 96 of 121 Conservative MPs voted in favour of second reading given that the party has opposed every bill protecting trans and non-binary people in the past decade, albeit in declining numbers:

The failed C-389 and C-279 as well as the successful C-16 were all efforts to add gender identity and gender expression to the Canadian Human Rights Act. At this juncture, it looks probable that Bill C-6 will become law: it’s a government bill, the votes are there, the committee it was referred to is chaired by a Liberal, and there’s no election in the forecast.

Despite the votes in favour, Conservatives haven’t changed their rhetoric from the days of opposing protections. Perhaps it’s to permit a later retraction of support like we saw with their provincial counterparts in Ontario. Perhaps they want to both-side it and appease those in favour of equality with their votes, and those opposed to with their speeches. Perhaps they actually oppose it, but since they lack the votes to kill it as they did previous legislation, there’s nothing to gain by voting against it except bad press. Whatever the reason, this article will go over the rhetorical devices they use in Parliament.

The bill

Since misrepresentation of the proposed law is endemic to rhetoric opposing it, it is helpful to first read the actual text of the bill. The most relevant passage states:

Conversion Therapy
Definition of conversion therapy
320.‍101 In sections 320.‍102 to 320.‍106, conversion therapy means 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. For greater certainty, this definition does not include a practice, treatment or service that relates
(a) to a person’s gender transition; or
(b) to a person’s exploration of their identity or to its development.
Forced conversion therapy
320.‍102 Everyone who knowingly causes a person to undergo conversion therapy against the person’s will is
(a) guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than five years; or
(b) guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.
Causing child to undergo conversion therapy
320.‍103 (1) Everyone who knowingly causes a person who is under the age of 18 years to undergo conversion therapy is
(a) guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than five years; or
(b) guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.

This is the fourth time this bill has been introduced. In September 2018, a petition started to ban the practice, which the NDP presented in February 2019, forcing the government to respond. In March 2019, the Liberal government said they would not ban the practice. The next month, former senator Serge Joyal introduced private member’s bill to do so, S-260. The proposed legislation died as a result of the election in October of that year but the Liberals had stated by then that they were looking at criminal code changes. Joyal reintroduced his bill as S-202 in December 2019. The Liberals then introduced Bill C-8 in March of 2020, which died when Justin Trudeau prorogued Parliament that August in the wake of the WE Charity scandal.

Media landscape

If Conservatives appear tepid in their support, it may be because the media their base consumes supports conversion therapy. Contemporary conservative thought portrays trans people as mentally unwell cisgender people and trans rights as demands to legitimize the ailment. It’s very similar to how they once conceptualized gay people.

Discourse about Bill C-6 on Twitter, YouTube, and Facebook is dominated by conservatives who oppose the legislation:

The National Post has released at least three opinion pieces opposing the bill:

Ottawa’s The Hill Times published two ads attacking the bill. The ads were put up by Jojo Ruba, more on him later. As a side note, the person featured in the second ad is not any concerned parent, but a highly active anti-trans campaigner Pamela Buffone:

The Ottawa Citizen also published an article attacking the bill:

In the piece, the Ottawa Citizen used fear mongering around trans youth:

“What’s happening in Canada is an uncontrolled medical experiment on children without any independent oversight or requirement to track health outcomes,” said Buffone, who runs the Canada Gender Report, a group raising questions about such issues. “We’re going into this totally blind.”

But rather than pause and re-assess current approaches, legislation now being considered by Parliament could further entrench the affirmation model. Bill C-6 outlaws “conversion therapy,” treatments designed to correct someone’s sexual orientation or gender identity, but critics worry that it could effectively criminalize non-medical options, like psychotherapy, for treating gender dysphoria.

The same article was also published in the National Post, making it the fourth piece to oppose the legislation. Note that the person quoted in the article is the same anti-trans activist featured in the ad above.

But wait, there’s more!

It’s not just on social media and leading newspapers that anti-trans views are thriving. The #1 book for “transgender” on Amazon in Canada is “Irreversible Damage: The Transgender Craze Seducing Our Daughters“. There’s six copies of it at the Ottawa Public Library:

The official description for the book contains a review from Kenneth Zucker, who ran a conversion therapy clinic in Toronto, and who was invited by the Conservatives as a witness to the hearings on Bill C-6. Another review is from Blanchard, who also worked at the same conversion therapy clinic as Zucker. Erika Muse testified about her experiences at seeking trans health care at that clinic from ages 16 to 23 before Parliament:

I underwent conversion therapy at the now-closed youth gender clinic at the Centre for Addictions and Mental Health, CAMH, in Toronto, with Kenneth Zucker. Yes, that is the same Kenneth Zucker who spoke to you on Tuesday, painting himself as a semi-retired professional and academic arguing for the rights of trans youth.

Dr. Zucker saw me as a patient for seven years, from the ages of 16 to 23, and denied me trans-affirming health care in the form of both hormones and surgery until I was 22. Dr. Zucker instead put me through what he has termed “desistance treatment” for trans youth. He interrogated me in talk therapy for hours at a time, inquisitorially attacking, damaging and attempting to destroy my identity and my self-esteem, and to make me ashamed and hateful of myself.

I specifically saw him in order to be referred for puberty blockers and trans hormone replacement therapy, as his clinic was the only one able to provide these treatments for many Ontarian youth at the time. Instead of providing affirmative care to fix my growing gender dysphoria and mental health issues, Zucker intentionally denied me care.

Trauma has cloaked many of my memories of the horrible treatment he put me through, but I remember the day he commented very positively on how my shoulders and ribcage had filled out. I had grown to look like a man. I remember trying not to cry in his office. Years into treatment, he had condemned me to the fate I wished to avoid, the very one I asked him every session to save me from. He made my body a prison and it is to this day.

The Conservatives also invited Jojo Ruba as a witness against Bill C-6, who a month later was giving a talk at Ottawa’s Dig & Delve conference to advocate for the involuntary conversion therapy of gay & trans youth:

Keeping it in Ottawa, Terrence Prendergast, the Archbishop of Ottawa-Cornwall for the Catholic church opposes Bill C-6 and supports involuntary conversion therapy of children:

The environment for trans people right now is not great, and this is what informs conservatives. The theme of trans people as predators targeting children is common to all of this contemporary opposition.

Barbara Kay, author of two of the National Post articles cited above, exemplifies vilifying trans people in this way:

Parliamentary playbook

Whereas American conservatives advocate for new laws to eradicate trans and non-binary people from society, introducing over 60 anti-trans bills in 2020, Canadian conservatives take the seemingly softer approach of preserving laws that are implicitly exclusive.

There’s been three main excuses Conservatives in Parliament have used over the past decade to justify their opposition to new legislation asserting the rights of trans and non-binary people:

  • 2009 – 2015: Presenting trans women as a threat to cisgender women and children in washrooms. This was later amended to present cisgender men as the threat, but portraying them as indistinguishable from trans women. This is what was used to oppose C-389 and C-279, which were bills to add gender identity and gender expression to the Canadian Human Rights Act.
  • 2016 – 2017: Portraying non-binary people’s pronouns as absurd and claiming intentionally misgendering them would be criminalized. This was then presented as a freedom of speech issue. This was used to oppose C-16, which was also a bill to add gender identity and gender expression to the Canadian Human Rights Act.
  • 2020 – 2021: Claiming cisgender children are being given hormones and surgeries and pushed into life-altering changes they’ll regret. This is being used now to oppose C-6, which is a bill to ban involuntary conversion therapy.

The individual excuses aren’t really pertinent. When the public support behind one excuse falters the conservatives come up with another. They start with the desire for exclusion and devise justifications that present cis people as victims of increasing trans acceptance; the reasons they give are disposable once their utility has expired.

Beyond promulgating myths that contribute to the toxic treatment of gender diverse individuals, Conservatives in Canada use the same small set of tactics in Parliament to disenfranchise that segment of the population.

Reverse who is victimized

Trans and non-binary people are being victimized by cis people. 68% of trans and non-binary Canadians have experienced verbal harassment in the past 5 years, 84% have avoided spaces for fear of harassment or outing, 42% have been sexually harassed, and 37% have been physically intimidated or threatened. Meanwhile, no cisgender person has been harassed or assaulted for being cis while going about their daily tasks.

But it’s more politically advantageous to reverse who is being victimized and present cis people as the victims of the increasing acceptance of trans people. To create a false equivalency between hypothetical fears that cis people have about inclusion with the demonstrable violence that trans people face.

In Parliament, this is done by stating that this measure to protect trans people is in conflict with the rights of cisgender people. Conservatives pulled the same tricks with the bills to add gender identity and gender expression to the Canadian Human Rights Act:

Mr. Speaker, I stand today to present, on behalf of thousands of people who sent these to my office, petitions in opposition to Bill C-279, otherwise known as “the bathroom bill”, that would give [transgender women] access to women’s public washroom facilities. These constituents feel that it is the duty of the House of Commons to protect and safeguard our children from any exposure and harm that would come from giving a [trans woman] access to women’s public washroom facilities. I present thousands of signatures on behalf of the riding in Calgary West, and I know that there are many others that have gone to other members in this place.

Rob Anders, then-Conservative MP for Calgary West, AB

I want you to tell me, Senator Mitchell, when you say that 0.3 per cent of society is trans, how their rights can trump the rights of my five-year-old granddaughter walking into a change room, a [transgender woman] walking into a bathroom.

Senator Don Plett, during the Senate hearings for Bill C-279

The fact is that creating a right to gender identity and gender expression would likely result in [transgender girls] having access to girls’ bathrooms. As the bill would also give special rights to those who simply consider themselves to be transgendered, the door would be open to sexual predators having a legal defence to charges of being caught in a women’s washroom or locker room.

Dean Allison, Conservative MP for Niagara West—Glanbrook, ON

Conservatives preserved the tactic with Bill C-6, presenting the proposed legislation as in conflict with cis people’s freedom of religion, their parental rights, and their freedom of expression:

I heard during the debate some members talk about how they wanted to uphold the LGBTQ rights over other rights. I do not want to be in a country where one group’s rights are being taken away in order to give rights to another group.

Twelve million people In Canada are Catholics. I want them to remember at election time that the Liberal government is trying to erode their freedom of speech and their freedom of religion.

…

In fact, yesterday was D-Day. People fought and died for our freedom of religion and our freedom of speech in this country.

Marilyn Gladu, Conservative MP for Sarnia—Lambton, ON

First, the Liberals want to regulate the internet under Bill C-10. Now they want to regulate private conversations in Bill C-6. Why does the Liberal government think it can tell Canadians what they can watch, post or discuss in the privacy of their own homes?

Tamara Jansen, Conservative MP for Cloverdale—Langley City, BC

Bill C-6 fails to affirm the right of parents to raise and educate their children in accordance with their beliefs. 

Ted Falk, Conservative MP for Provencher, MB

I believe that [Bill C-6] puts LGBTQ+ Canadians, children, parents, religious leaders and medical professionals at risk.

Dane Lloyd, Conservative MP for Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB

There is very reasonable concern that the legislation… leaves the door open to infringe on religious expression and parental rights… We cannot infringe on religious freedoms and we must respect parents… As it is written in the current legislation, the definition of conversion therapy is overreaching, in my view, and it is flawed.

Rosemarie Falk, Conservative MP for Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK

The Conservatives are pushing to amend the law as to remove any new protections for trans and non-binary people. There’d still be new legislation on the books, but functionally, it wouldn’t cover any new circumstances beyond what’s already illegal with forcible confinement and assault. This too – amending bills as to preserve the status quo – is another old technique of the Conservatives that was employed with Bill C-279.

Disregard provincial & territorial experience

Ontario outlawed conversion therapy in 2015 with Bill 77. Manitoba did the same in 2015 too. PEI did it in 2019. Quebec and the Yukon in 2020. None of the catastrophizing that Conservatives suggest occurred in these jurisdictions that cover more than half of the country’s population.

It was the same with Bill C-16 to add gender identity and expression to the Canadian Human Rights Act in 2016. A similar bill had already been passed in Ontario in 2012 with Bill 33 “Toby’s Act” as well as other jurisdictions. Years later federal Conservatives claimed there would be a wave of sexual predators in washrooms and people going to jail for misgendering intentionally, even though none of it had ever happened with the same laws already in place in the province they were deliberating. That fear-mongering shaped the public discourse on trans and non-binary people, to their detriment.

With Conservatives intentionally disregarding this provincial and territorial experience, the predictions they present are being done in bad faith.

Target the most vulnerable

Another tactic by Conservatives when opposing legislation is to manufacture a wedge issue by targeting the sub-group among the beneficiaries of the bill which maintains the least public support. With the bills to add gender identity and expression to the Canadian Human Rights Act, conservatives first targeted trans women in gendered spaces, and later on went after non-binary people and their use of pronouns.

With this law to ban conversion therapy, Conservatives focused their talking points on gender identity. For example, in the Justice and Human Rights Committee hearings, Conservatives invited Dr. Kenneth Zucker to speak, who ran a conversion therapy clinic for gender diverse children:

Up front, let me state that I am in full agreement that mental health clinicians should not attempt to change the sexual orientation of individuals under the age of 18 years… Where I disagree quite strongly with Bill C-6 is in its additional focus on gender identity in children and adolescents… In my view, Bill C-6 should be modified in one of two ways. One is to delete entirely any reference to gender identity and restrict it to sexual orientation, the original target of criticism of conversion therapy.

Dr. Kenneth Zucker representing himself, in the Justice and Human Rights Committee hearings for Bill C-6

Conservatives also invited Pour les Droits des Femmes du Québec, an organization that has as its official mandate a call to advocate for the exclusion of trans women and which also opposed Bill C-16. Both of their representatives objected to the inclusion of gender identity but not sexual orientation:

I hope that you’ll support Bill C-6, except for the inclusion of gender identity, because the bill treats it the same as sexual orientation.

Dr. James Cantor from Pour les Droits des Femmes du Québec, in the Justice and Human Rights Committee hearings for Bill C-6

Needless to say, we are absolutely against conversion therapy of the kind Mr. Ashcroft underwent. However, sexual orientation and gender identity must not be confused. Gender identity is a mental health diagnosis that leads to therapy—that requires therapy. Homosexuality is not a mental health diagnosis. Not at all.

Ghislaine Gendron from Pour les Droits des Femmes du Québec, in the Justice and Human Rights Committee hearings for Bill C-6

Pour les Droits des Femmes du Québec organized this rally in Montreal to portray Bill C-6 as a threat to cis women because it acknowledges gender identity may be diverse:

The Conservatives also invited the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms, a group which is currently representing a case against the Ottawa Carleton District School Board to force it to remove its trans-inclusive curriculum:

Objectively harmful coercive practices that are designed to change a person’s sexual orientation, as we’ve just heard, should be banned. That is what Canadians think of when they hear the phrase “conversion therapy”. But when it comes to gender identity, improperly conflated with sexual orientation in this bill, what we think we are talking about and what activists mean and are pushing for are not the same… My concern is that gender identity should be removed entirely.

Lisa Bildy from Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms, in the Justice and Human Rights Committee hearings for Bill C-6

Don’t invite or cite members of the minority

Another tactic from Conservatives opposing laws protecting a minority is to not invite or cite a member of that minority to speak, except those that identify themselves as formerly from that minority. With Bill C-6 this means to only listen to those who identify as ex-trans or ex-gay.

If the bathroom predator trope defined Bill C-279, the transition regret trope is the defining one for Bill C-6. There is a grain of truth to the latter. Of 3,398 patients of the UK Gender Identity Clinic, 16 expressed transition-related regret, or about 0.5% Of 22,725 patients receiving gender affirming surgeries, 62 had reported regret to their surgeons, or about 0.2%. But to deny 99% of trans people potentially life-saving medical care and to support harmful conversion therapy for them over the views of the sub-one-percent who would have made different choices is absurd. Cis people would never argue that all cis people should be denied surgery on the basis that a minuscule proportion regretted it.

But here are these views expressed in Parliament, with the added layer of misrepresenting how gender affirming care is handled for youth and disregarding the agency those in their late teens already have:

Madam Speaker, in the case of one YouTuber, Elle Palmer, she started taking testosterone at the age of 16. She struggled for many years with issues of self-hatred and, in her words, began the process of transitioning, not in order to look more masculine but in order to hide elements of her body. In her opinion, transitioning was the ultimate form of self-harm.

Tamara Jansen, Conservative MP for Cloverdale—Langley City, BC

I want to quote Lee, one of many young transgender individuals who has de-transitioned and realized some important truths for de-transition. She said, “There were all these red flags and I honestly wish that somebody had pointed them out to me and then I might not have transitioned in the first place. If I had realized that somebody with a history of an eating disorder, a history of childhood sexual abuse, a history of neglect and bullying for being a gender non-conforming female, a person with internalized homophobia and misogyny should not have been encouraged to transition. …. I wish that somebody had sort of tried to stop me … transition …. did not work for me.”

Cathay Wagantall, Conservative MP for Yorkton—Melville, SK

In another piece of personal testimony, Max explicitly states that gender transition was not the solution to her severe depression. In her words, she feels that she needed a transition in her life, but not from female to male.

Cari’s advice to others is that, from her own experience and from her conversations with other detransitioned and reidentified women, “transition is not the only way, or even necessarily the best way, to treat gender dysphoria”.

Cathay Wagantall, Conservative MP for Yorkton—Melville, SK

Keira Bell is one of the young women who was referred to the Tavistock institute, which is the clinic there that deals with gender referrals for gender identity… She spent several years living, outwardly looking like a man, and she came to regret it. She was in her early twenties… It did not make anything better and, in fact, it made a lot of things worse.

Derek Sloan, Independent MP for Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON

After learning about gender identities on the Internet, I found an escape route from my complexes and periods: transitioning. I was given access to hormone blockers, testosterone, and a mastectomy. The psychiatric team treating me had noted increased aggression and some suicide attempts. Rather than accepting myself, I chose it as a way to escape who I was. I stopped taking hormones after three years, but some side effects are not reversible. I went into debt to pay for breast implants. Going back is not as easy as the initial transition.

Ex-trans person, quoted by Ghislaine Gendron in the Justice and Human Rights Committee hearings

I want you to picture a young teenage girl who starts to question her gender identity… Instead of having her anxiety and depressive symptoms treated, she is fast-tracked onto puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones, and at age 20 she has both breasts removed… At age 23 she regrets her hasty decision and begins to detransition. She is left with a permanent five o’clock shadow, a permanently low voice and no breasts… This is not an imaginary person. This is Keira Bell, the young woman who successfully sued England’s Tavistock gender clinic.

Dr. Jane Dobson, in the Justice and Human Rights Committee hearings

Conservatives continued on representing only those that identified as formerly gay:

As a teenager, Emmanuel began exploring gay culture. He wanted to understand his sexuality. He wanted to belong. At 16, he began to identify as gay and entered relationships with other men, but he feared rejection from family, friends and his faith community… In time, he made a personal decision, his own choice, that he no longer wanted to continue this course that his life was on. He wanted to live his life in a way that was consistent with his faith and beliefs.

Ted Falk, Conservative MP for Provencher, MB

This reality of a chill effect on counselling has already caused serious concern to a young man who wrote to my office… In order to find the most fulfillment in his married life, he decided, with the support of his wife, to get counselling to help him manage his same-sex attractions.

Jeremy Patzer, Conservative MP for Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK

Instead, we began to tackle the difficulties I had walked through as child. As I went on that journey each week that I met with him, I was able to identify the lies that I was believing about myself and I began to experience a truth that restored my heart. I started to see life differently and deeply loved it. Joy began to swell within me. I began to see myself for who Jesus truly created me to be.

As a result, I decided I no longer wanted to continue the course my life was on. I ceased to engage in same-sex relationships and instead sought to live my life in a way that was consistent with my faith and beliefs.

Emmanuel Sanchez, in the Justice and Human Rights Committee hearings

Thankfully, I found support in two places, from a University of Lethbridge counsellor whose service I paid for, and a faith-based sex addiction group. Both helped reduce my non-heterosexual behaviour, and the support saved my marriage, my sanity and my life.

Colette Aikema, in the Justice and Human Rights Committee hearings

I have had so many people reach out to me in regard to this bill. Charlotte, a young woman in Calgary, was involved in lesbian activity. She struggled with self-worth and depression. She reached a point in her life when she did not want to continue with her lesbian activity, and her parents supported her choice and helped her find a counsellor who helped her process the feelings.

Tamara Jansen, Conservative MP for Cloverdale—Langley City, BC

This is intentionally misleading as the bill does not prohibit adults from seeking this kind of treatment. It bans forcing it on others without their consent.

Invite entities only known for their bigotry

I wrote in 2014:

When conservatives want to find out about trans people, they don’t attend trans community events, consult those who work with trans people, or ask trans people about their lives. They turn to known hate groups who don’t know anything about trans people other than their own unrealized fears. They act against this imaginary foe. The fictitious nature of their opponent leaves no place to appreciate how real people are then harmed.

This still holds true today in the Justice and Human Rights Committee hearings. Conservatives will only invite cis people who regard trans people as aberrations as witnesses; the kind of witnesses would would find even hiring a qualified trans person as untenable. The status of witness the House of Commons gives them an air of reputability, which is utilized by conservative Senators to create a false equivalency between those who support and oppose discrimination.

At the hearings for Bill C-6, the Conservatives invited the following witnesses. As expected, they were exclusively cisgender people and cisgender-run organizations, all with documented efforts to purge trans people from society:

Argue definition is too broad

Arguing that the definition in the legislation is too broad is a common tool of Conservatives. It’s an excuse to define out almost all real-world discrimination trans and non-binary people face while giving the appearance of supporting the legislation.

This results in comments like this for Bill C-6:

The issue is the definition in the bill, which is overly broad. It would criminalize things that are not conversion therapy. The definition in Bill C-6 says that it is a “practice, treatment or service designed to change a person’s sexual orientation to heterosexual, to change a person’s gender identity or gender expression to cisgender or to repress or reduce non-heterosexual attraction or sexual behaviour.”

Marilyn Gladu, Conservative MP for Sarnia—Lambton, ON

As it is written in the current legislation, the definition of conversion therapy is overreaching, in my view, and it is flawed. It does not strike the right balance between protecting people of the LGBTQ community, parental rights and freedom of religion.

Rosemarie Falk, Conservative MP for Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK

In that regard, the definition provided in Bill C-6 is overly broad… When we talk about a definition that criminalizes any treatment or service that reduces or seeks to reduce sexual attraction or sexual behaviour, that is very broad…

Michael Cooper, Conservative MP for St. Albert—Edmonton, AB

Bill C-6 is much too expansive, based on the fact that Canada’s ban actually bans two kinds of counselling: sexual orientation change counselling and reduction of sexual behaviour counselling independent of orientation change. This is why the ban is so dangerous.

Cathay Wagantall, Conservative MP for Yorkton—Melville, SK

The problem with Bill C-6 is that the definition is so cloudy, poor and overly broad that one cannot clearly define what would be acceptable as far as having conversations, or asking for counselling or asking for help from a spiritual leader or a pastor.

Ted Falk, Conservative MP for Provencher, MB

[The] bill, as written, is a trick, calling things conversion therapy that are not in fact conversion therapy. It is a trick which exploits the real suffering of some LGBTQ individuals and seeks to use them for political purposes and in so doing, limit their rights to have open conversations about their sexual feelings.

Garnett Genuis, Conservative MP for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB

Conservatives meanwhile will invite speakers that make the same argument:

The first problem is that the definition of conversion therapy is overly broad and imprecise. It’s likely to capture situations that are not actual conversion therapy and cause confusion. The second problem is that the existing exception for medical treatment is too narrow, because it specifies only one lawful form of treatment: gender transition.

Daniel Santoro, in the Justice and Human Rights Committee hearings

I am deeply concerned, however, that the current definition of conversion therapy found in Bill C-6 goes much further than the stated goal of criminalizing coercive behaviour… In its current form the legislation lacks protection in relation to the following: the fundamental right of parents as first educators and guardians to make decisions regarding the welfare of their children, specifically their freedom to instruct them in accord with their religious and ethical beliefs…Suppose you have a young person who is struggling. They have gender dysphoria, or whatever… If I were a parent, a counsellor or a priest, and a person came to me with these issues, I would advise them not to go in that direction.

Cardinal Thomas Collins (Archbishop, Archdiocese of Toronto), in the Justice and Human Rights Committee hearings

Conservative MPs also created a website “Fix the Definition” featuring a video of Emmanuel Sanchez, the individual mentioned earlier who professed to cease his same-sex relationships:

This is a very old tactic for Conservatives. From 1994 by members of their precursor party:

The second petition calls on the government not to amend the Human Rights Code or any other legislation which would “indicate societal approval of same sex relationships or homosexuality”. They are particularly concerned about the lack of definition of the phrase sexual orientation.

Chuck Strahl, Reform MP for Fraser Valley East, BC

Or from 1995:

-to my mind, the term “sexual orientation” is pretty broad. It could involve all kinds of repugnant possibilities, even those that are illegal. So could you address your mind to the definition of the term “sexual orientation” and support what you are saying when you say that it is carefully and narrowly drafted? I ask this because my assertion is that the term “sexual orientation” is not defined and is too broad.

…

Witnesses had come before the justice committee and stated that sexual orientation could mean anything, including transsexuality and even pedophilia. Canadians need to know the direction the government is taking. I think they are observing that it is downhill.

Paul Forseth, Reform MP for New Westminster—Burnaby, BC

Purport to represent the minority

Conservatives will co-opt the language of those seeking protections to create a false equivalency. If the beneficiaries of a bill talk about rights, then the Conservatives speak to how the rights of others would be diminished by these same laws.

Another tactic is to co-opt the beneficiaries of the bill, claiming to represent them while only ever giving voice to their detractors. This provides the appearance of being equivalent in merit and is sufficient to dupe less informed observers. However it does result in absurd claims for a bill that’s about ending a form of abuse for trans and queer youth:

Bill C-6 clearly violates the fundamental Charter of Rights and Freedoms for LGBTQ2 and other Canadians.

Cathay Wagantall, Conservative MP for Yorkton—Melville, SK

[Bill C-6] would negatively impact equal access to counselling for LGBTQ individuals, as no counsellor would be allowed to help repress or reduce non-heterosexual behaviour.

Jeremy Patzer, Conservative MP for Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK

[Bill C-6] is a trick which exploits the real suffering of some LGBTQ individuals and seeks to use them for political purposes…

Garnett Genuis, Conservative MP for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB

This legislation potentially undermines the ability … to discouraging a child from undergoing a gender transition… I believe that Bill C-6 would harm some LGBTQ Canadians, some families and society in general…

Dane Lloyd, Conservative MP for Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB

Bill C-6 would criminalize parents who want to discourage their young child from transitioning, who would not be making life-altering decisions… There are in fact many people, even in LGB communities, who are against this bill.

Derek Sloan, Independent MP for Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON

The definition is not used by any medical body in the world, and it will cause this bill to ban … the support that helps certain LGBTQ Canadians.

Tamara Jansen, Conservative MP for Cloverdale—Langley City, BC

There are also concerns that this bill would restrict the choices and freedoms of the LGBT community by limiting their access to professional services based on their orientation or gender identity.

Arnold Viersen, Conservative MP for Peace River—Westlock, AB

Bill C-6 could restrict the choices of all Canadians, including those from the LGBTQ community, concerning sexuality and gender by prohibiting access to any professional or spiritual support freely chosen to limit sexual behaviour or to detransition.

Ted Falk, Conservative MP for Provencher, MB

Claim support for the spirit of the bill

The format for Conservatives in Parliament for trans-inclusive legislation up until now was: claim support for the principle of the legislation then oppose the bill using a dog whistle or by letting transphobic witnesses speak for them. The purpose of asserting support is to make it seem like the rest isn’t rooted in bias but careful consideration. In reality, one doesn’t preclude the other and there is no formulation granting novel protections that would have satisfied these conservatives.

Examples from the House of Commons:

As I have said, it is my belief that the practice of involuntary conversion therapy is harmful and should be banned, but we cannot ban or police thought and expression. We cannot infringe on religious freedoms and we must respect parents.

Rosemarie Falk, Conservative MP for Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK

I support a conversion therapy ban, but not this conversion therapy ban, because this bans more than just conversion therapy. 

Cathay Wagantall, Conservative MP for Yorkton—Melville, SK

I support a conversion therapy ban, however, I do not support the ban as written in this legislation.

Jeremy Patzer, Conservative MP for Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK

Conservatives are opposed to conversion therapy and are looking forward to a bill that would ban conversion therapy and not conversations.

Dane Lloyd, Conservative MP for Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB

Another way

It didn’t have to be like this.

From 2012 to 2018, Ontario Progressive Conservatives supported a series of trans-affirming legislative efforts. They voted to add gender identity and expression to the Ontario Human Rights Act, to ban conversion therapy in Ontario, to make it so same-sex parents no longer needed to adopt their own children, and their leader advocated for trans-inclusive sex-ed. The party then unfortunately reverted to being transphobic following new leadership in 2018.

Federal conservatives could have followed the lead of fellow Conservative MPs like Michelle Rempel and Raquel Dancho and ditch the harmful rhetoric once and for all. They had a path forward but they chose differently.

Update – June 2021

62 of 113 (54%) Conservative MPs and one former Conservative MP turned independent opposed the legislation upon third reading in the House of Commons. Indeed, it seemed that the retraction of support came to be. 263 other Parliamentarians however voted in favour, sending the bill to the Senate.

Upon second reading in the Senate, they could either send the bill to third reading, or send it to committee. The leading conservative, Don Plett, got it sent it to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee, knowing that they had recessed for the summer and that the expected election in the fall would kill any bill not yet passed.

While Plett used the traditional conservative dog whistle of religious freedom:

Bill C-6 will criminalize the beliefs and teachings of many faith communities.

Senator Don Plett

He also argued that this bill to stop involuntary conversion therapy was discriminatory against sexual and gender minorities, in part quoting the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms:

Fourthly, as noted earlier, this bill’s definition of conversion therapy only applies in one direction. It restricts the freedom of non-heterosexuals and non-cisgendered persons to voluntarily seek out certain kinds of professional help, but it does not restrict heterosexuals or cisgendered persons… “A law that allows opposite-sex attracted Canadians to receive supports to reduce unwanted sexual addictions or behaviours, but bars same-sex attracted Canadians from doing the same, is indisputable discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.”

Senator Don Plett

He concluded:

I believe this bill needs to be sent to committee to examine how to resolve these issues properly.

Senator Don Plett

Plett had successfully pulled this same kill-by-delay tactic with Bill C-279, thwarting adding protections for gender identity and gender expression to the Canadian Human Rights Act. His display of concern with Bill C-6 was performative; if even adding the words ‘gender identity’ to the Canadian Human Rights Act was too much for him there’s no meaningful formulation of this law that would have satisfied him. This false concern was for optics, since outright opposition makes for bad public relations.

So it was that the ban on conversion therapy likely would fall victim to the Liberal Party’s ambitions, what with prorogation and the election, and the Conservative Party’s intolerance of sexual and gender diversity.

On the same day that Don Plett achieved his latest victory, I was removing transphobic signage with my partner a few blocks away from Parliament. A local group of anti-trans activists were objecting to the participation of a trans woman from New Zealand at the Tokyo olympics. This same group had defaced the posters affirming trans people downtown and unsurprisingly opposed the conversion therapy ban.

As a side note, the Dr. Emma Hilton quoted above devotes her Twitter feed to opposing basic rights for trans people and is partially responsible for getting trans women banned from World Rugby using bogus science. “Unsporting” refers to the book “Unsporting: How Trans Activism and Science Denial are Destroying Sport” from co-author Barbara Kay; the same Barbara Kay referenced earlier in this article.

Update – August 2021

The Liberals have called an election for September 20th, 2021. As Bill C-6 was not able to complete it’s legislative process before the Parliamentary session concluded, it has died.