Tag Archive

Canada’s Bill C-4 was sold as a targeted ban on abusive “conversion therapy.” That goal of ending coercive, shame-based attempts to “pray the gay away”is legitimate, and the harms from such practices are well documented. (Library of Parliament)

But C-4 didn’t stop at prohibiting coercion. It built contested premises about “gender identity” into the Criminal Code—then wrapped ordinary clinical caution in legal risk. For children, that’s not a symbolic problem. It’s a downstream harm problem.

1) C-4 hard-codes a contested concept into criminal scope

The Criminal Code definition of “conversion therapy” includes any “practice, treatment or service designed to… change a person’s gender identity to cisgender,” or “repress… a person’s non-cisgender gender identity.” (Department of Justice Canada)

That’s not the same category as sexual orientation. Whatever one’s politics, “gender identity” is not measured like blood pressure. In real child psychotherapy, you do differential diagnosis: you test hypotheses, you treat comorbidities, you watch patterns over time, you revisit interpretations.

C-4 makes one interpretive direction toward “cisgender”a uniquely danger to be seen as the “design” of therapy. (Department of Justice Canada)

2) The preamble signals something stronger than “don’t abuse people”

The Act’s preamble denounces “myths and stereotypes,” including “the myth that… cisgender gender identity… [and] gender expression that conforms to the sex assigned… are to be preferred over other… gender identities.” (Parliament of Canada)

Supporters will say this is a dignity claim: no one should be pressured to “be cis.” Fine. But when Parliament declares a core premise a “myth,” it doesn’t just condemn abuse it pressures institutions to treat skepticism as suspect.

In therapy, that matters, because the clinician’s job is not to recite a moral slogan. It’s to find the causal engine of distress in a specific child.

3) “Exploration” is permitted—until it looks like exploration with a destination

C-4 includes a “for greater certainty” carve-out for “exploration or development of an integrated personal identity… such as… gender transition,” provided the service is not “based on an assumption that a particular… gender identity… is to be preferred over another.” (Department of Justice Canada)

Here’s the problem: in actual clinical practice, the line between exploration and influence is not a clean statutory boundary.

A careful therapist might say:

• “Let’s treat anxiety/OCD first and see what remains.”
• “Let’s explore trauma and dissociation before we interpret identity claims.”
• “Let’s reduce online reinforcement and stabilize sleep, mood, and social stress.”
• “Let’s slow down—puberty is a confounder, not an oracle.”

That’s not “conversion.” That’s normal clinical sequencing.

But under C-4’s language, a motivated complainant (or risk-averse administrator) can reframe caution as an attempt to “repress” a non-cis identity, or as therapy “designed” to steer toward “cisgender.” (Department of Justice Canada)
Even if a prosecution is unlikely, the chilling effect doesn’t require convictions. It only requires enough ambiguity that clinicians and clinics decide it’s not worth the exposure.

4) This isn’t “college policy.” It’s Criminal Code territory.

Bill C-4 received Royal Assent on December 8, 2021 and came into force in January 2022. (Parliament of Canada)
It created Criminal Code offences around causing someone to undergo conversion therapy, promoting/advertising it, and profiting from it. (Parliament of Canada)

So when therapists ask, “Can I safely do exploratory work with this child without being accused of ‘conversion’?” they are not being melodramatic. They are doing what professionals do when lawmakers write broad definitions: they assume the worst plausible reading—and they self-censor.

5) Why this hits children hardest

Adults can absorb bad ideology and still have time to course-correct. Kids often can’t.

Children need therapy that is:

• exploratory (many hypotheses, not one script),
• developmentally sober (puberty changes the picture),
• comorbidity-first (anxiety, depression, autism traits, trauma, dissociation),
• family-systems aware (parents are usually the safety net, not “the enemy”),
• outcome-humble (no foreclosed conclusions).

C-4 subtly tilts the playing field: it makes “don’t be seen as steering away from trans identity” the safest institutional posture regardless of whether that posture serves the child in front of you.

6) Why this question is sharper now

After the February 10, 2026 Tumbler Ridge shootings, public attention has turned—again—to institutional failure chains: mental health, gatekeeping, warning signs, and what “care” actually means when a young person is unstable. The BC RCMP’s Feb 13 update refers to autopsies for “eight victims and the suspect” (nine deceased total), and notes ongoing review of prior interactions with the suspect. (RCMP)

A tragedy doesn’t “prove” a policy critique. But it does remove the luxury of pretending that scripts are the same thing as safeguards.

A better standard (without reviving abusive conversion practices)

If Parliament’s aim is to ban coercion and fraud, it can do so cleanly without criminalizing clinical caution.

A fix would explicitly protect:

1. Open-ended psychotherapy for gender distress, including differential diagnosis and comorbidity treatment.
2. Neutral therapeutic goals (reducing distress, improving functioning, strengthening self-acceptance) without predetermining identity outcomes.
3. The clinician’s ability to discuss biological sex reality, uncertainty, and developmental pathways without that being treated as “preference” or “myth.” (Parliament of Canada)
4. Bright-line prohibitions aimed at the actual evils: coercion, aversive techniques, confinement, threats, and misrepresentation.

Canada can still denounce abuse and defend evidence-based exploration. Kids deserve therapists unbound by ideology—not just ideology unbound by evidence.

References

1. Bill C-4 — First Reading (House of Commons) — Nov 29, 2021
   https://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/44-1/bill/C-4/first-reading
   Source: (Parliament of Canada)
2. Bill C-4 — Third Reading (House of Commons) — Dec 1, 2021
   https://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/44-1/bill/C-4/third-reading
   Source: (Parliament of Canada)
3. Bill C-4 — Royal Assent (Chapter 24) — Dec 8, 2021
   https://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/44-1/bill/C-4/royal-assent
   Source: (Parliament of Canada)

Core legal text (Criminal Code, consolidated)

4. Criminal Code — s. 320.101 (definition + exploration carve-out)
   https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/c-46/section-320.101.html
5. Statutes of Canada 2021, c. 24 (Annual Statutes full text — includes preamble)
   https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/AnnualStatutes/2021_24/FullText.html

Official legislative record / metadata (timeline, status)

6. LEGISinfo — Bill C-4 (44-1) (dates, stages, summary trail)
   https://www.parl.ca/legisinfo/en/bill/44-1/c-4
   Source: (Parliament of Canada)

Neutral institutional summary

7. Library of Parliament — Legislative Summary (PDF)
   https://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2022/bdp-lop/ls/YM32-3-441-C4-eng.pdf
   Source: (Government of Canada Publications)

Government explainer / enforcement framing

8. Justice Canada — “Conversion therapy” page (in-force date, offences overview)
   https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr/jr/ct-tc/p1.html

Context reference used in the essay (Tumbler Ridge)

9. RCMP — Tumbler Ridge investigative update (Feb 13, 2026)
   https://rcmp.ca/en/bc/tumbler-ridge/news/2026/02/4350292