Thank you.
I would like to say at the outset that Monsieur Fortin and I are in agreement on the expansiveness of the term “gender expression”. I don't disagree with anything he said about its meaning.
In terms of the term “practice”, I do acknowledge that it's broader than the other terms of “treatment” or “service”. As the minister explained in his comments, it means an action that happens habitually or regularly.
I would just take note that every word has to be interpreted in its context and purposively and consistent with the overall objective of the bill, which is to target harmful practices, practices that we have evidence cause harm, and these concern changing gender identity to cisgender and sexual orientation to heterosexual. The terms need to be interpreted in that light.
Courts may also look to places where those terms have been used in other contexts, and in all of those contexts, whether it's the Criminal Code or provincial health care legislation that deals with conversion therapy, we are looking at some kind of formalized intervention. I note that “practice, treatment or service” is used in certain provincial/territorial legislation dealing with conversion therapy.
The overall objectives of the bill are going to influence how those terms are interpreted. Then it's up to the courts, of course, to apply the definition to specific circumstances, to the facts of each case.
Those are my comments on the scope of the definition and in particular the meaning of the term “practice”.
Thank you.