Thank you, Madam Chair, and let me add my thanks to all of the witnesses for coming today.
This is a very difficult topic, and there are varying opinions on it, although I think there's consensus on one thing, and let me give you an example.
I was talking to a friend recently. He asked me what I was doing. I told him that I was on the justice committee and that we were discussing legislation banning conversion therapy. He seemed puzzled. I explained to him what conversion therapy was and he said, “Well, I didn't even think that was still legal and how can anybody possibly be opposed to this legislation?” I said,“Well, you'd be surprised.”
I told him that a number of people are actually opposed to it, and that there are still some people who think it needs to be further refined. I think the second part of that statement is where we're at on this committee. I think there's consensus from the witnesses today that banning conversion therapy is vital.
Let me start with you, Mr. Schutten.
We've heard testimony that this legislation, because of the definitions you've referred to, might put a freeze on therapy and, I think you said, might prevent parents from taking their children for counselling and might have an impact on religious environment.
With respect, sir, I've looked at this legislation, and it simply doesn't do that. I'm receiving a number of calls at my office and emails from people who are saying, “Look, I'm not going to be able to go to church now, and I'm not going to be able to talk to my priest.” My concern is that some of these thoughts that are being put out there are creating confusion on what the legislation is trying to do.
The goal of the legislation is simply to ban an archaic process and approach to dealing with people who want to live their life the way they feel they should, and it's as simple as that.
Do you agree with that? Do you agree that there are people out there who are causing a great deal of confusion, which is doing harm to the goal of this legislation?