Thank you, Chairperson.
I would answer the member that of course this assessment is correct. The mischief that seeks to be regulated by this bill is clear. It does not capture good-faith conversations with faith leaders or with counsellors who are helpful. There is no double standard as compared with same-sex or different-sex or same-gender or different-gender relationships, except that large parts of society condemn queer and trans people and seek by force to restrict their relationships. When people are exercising autonomy over their own health care and their own behaviour, whether they're doing it in a secular, a medical or a religious setting, that type of counsel is not the intended target of this bill.
I think the government's intention has been clearly expressed in several circulars, and I think because this is a criminal prohibition the courts will be narrow in interpreting what is meant to be captured.
The kinds of beneficial conversations with faith leaders and counsellors that some of the witnesses and you have been talking about will in my view still obviously be permitted, despite the efforts of Parliament to capture harm and abuse that is coercive and damaging.