I would say that if Mr. Lametti is attempting to truly ban coercive and abusive practices, why are the words “coercion” and “abuse” not in the definition as he is defining conversion therapy?
My second concern and second message to him is that there is a clause that makes it okay to have affirming conversations. My concern with that is that affirming conversations are incredibly ambiguous. What would be affirming to you may not be as affirming to me as it might to somebody else. I really feel that the definition needs a clear, concise understanding of what it is banning and what it is not banning in order to avoid confusion.
As well, like Mr. Keslick, I am somebody who requires counselling and guidance to help us both live according to our views and faith, but currently a lot of counsellors now are unwilling to provide that care for us. I can prove that, because that's a lot of the conversations that I've heard amongst various counsellors even here in Calgary, as the bylaw that we have is very similar to this bill by the federal department.