Mr. Speaker, the best response is just to restate what my argument was, which is I am opposed to conversion therapy. I agree that conversion therapy should be banned and it needs to be properly defined.
The definition, as written, is what we are debating. We are debating a bill that has a definition in it and that is the definition that will become the law if the bill is passed unamended. It is not the common sense definition of what conversion therapy is. It is the text of the definition. The text of the definition includes any effort, could be a private conversation, any practice, treatment or service, and practice is not defined in the legislation, which involves reducing or repressing non-heterosexual attraction or sexual behaviour.
I used some examples in my speech of cases in which there might be a private conversation that aims at supporting someone in his or her efforts to reduce or modify the individual's sexual behaviour. That falls into the definition, unfortunately, as it is written. It is a fixable problem. I hope we can get to a bill on which we can all agree.
It is very important to highlight that fixable problem. What becomes the law is the text of the bill, not the intentions of the speakers in the House.