We have to be—
Evidence of meeting #14 for Justice and Human Rights in the 43rd Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was therapy.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Evidence of meeting #14 for Justice and Human Rights in the 43rd Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was therapy.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Noon
Advisor, Association for Reformed Political Action Canada
—able to respect and show grace to everybody. That's what we believe as Christians, but—
Noon
Advisor, Association for Reformed Political Action Canada
—to say that we can't influence people doesn't work.
Noon
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Iqra Khalid
Sorry, sir. Thank you. My apologies. We're out of time for Monsieur Fortin. Hopefully, you'll get to comment. If you would like to provide written submissions to that response, that would be great. My apologies. We're in a time crunch.
We'll now go to Mr. Garrison for two and a half minutes.
Go ahead, sir.
Noon
NDP
Randall Garrison NDP Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC
Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
I am quite optimistic that we will pass a bill banning conversion therapy. I'm not as optimistic that it will be as expansive as I, and some of our witnesses, would like to see. When we get done with that, we still are left with the legacy of conversion therapy, so I'd like to take this last bit of time and maybe give a minute each to Erika Muse and Jack Saddleback to talk about the supports that are available or not available to survivors of conversion therapy.
Maybe we can start with Erika and then go to Jack.
Noon
As an Individual
There are no supports available, period. We do not have any trained trauma supports available through the Canadian public health care system in general. Mental health care supports are not provided, especially ones that provide to survivors themselves.
My treatment at the hands of Kenneth Zucker made me unable to work for a number of years and ruined my mental health. I'm currently on Ontario government disability because of that.
There is no allowance for me to regain lost income or to put my life back together in some respect. Importantly—and this is very important for me as a trans survivor—the denial of medical health care by Dr. Zucker specifically changed my body permanently, and there is no funding through the public health care system for any way to make that better for myself, through surgery or other practices, to heal the physical changes and hurts that he did to me.
In response to that, there are no supports, but I dearly wish that there would be some in general.
Noon
NDP
Randall Garrison NDP Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC
Thank you, Erika, for being so brave and for sharing your experience with us.
Jack, can you comment on the situation in indigenous communities?
Noon
Co-Chair, 2 Spirits in Motion
I'd say that we create our own supports.
I believe that my fellow witness here, Erika, is right with regard to there being no formal supports when it comes to survivors of conversion therapy. Simply, the supports come from within the community.
Within the indigenous community, we have a very strong, united, two-spirit community across Canada and even in the United States. We are expanding to other countries to look at these shared experiences of colonialism on indigenous people and at how these aspects of conversion therapy have impacted us around the globe.
In saying so, I want to reiterate that our strength is our resiliency. We will continue to be our true selves, and we will continue to revitalize our sacred roles that were harmed by these colonial tactics and, thus, conversion therapy.
Thank you.
12:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Iqra Khalid
Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Garrison. That's all the time we have today for this panel.
On behalf of the committee, I'd like to thank all of the witnesses for taking the time to share their experience and expertise with us.
We'll now suspend for a minute as we let in our next panel of witnesses.
Thank you again, members, for your patience.
12:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Iqra Khalid
Good afternoon, everybody. I call this meeting back to order.
We are studying Bill C-6. I have just a few comments for witnesses before we get started.
Before speaking, please wait until I recognize you by name, and then unmute yourself on the microphone. Once you're done speaking, please mute yourself again to limit any interruptions. You have the ability to select the language of interpretation at the bottom of your screen so that you can listen in throughout the whole meeting and understand.
When you're speaking, please speak slowly and clearly. This is for interpretation purposes. When you're not speaking, as I said, your microphone should be on mute.
This is a reminder that all comments by members and witnesses should be addressed through the chair. My pronouns are she and her. If witnesses and members feel comfortable, please do share your pronouns so that we can address you properly.
With that, I'd like to introduce our witnesses.
We have Timothy Keslick, an ASL-English interpreter; Dr. Travis Salway, an assistant professor in the faculty of health sciences at Simon Fraser University; Emmanuel Sanchez; and Adrienne Smith, a lawyer.
Welcome, witnesses.
We'll start with Timothy Keslick for five minutes.
Go ahead, sir.
12:10 p.m.
Timothy Keslick ASL-English Interpreter, As an Individual
Good afternoon, Madam Chair and members of the standing committee. My name is Timothy Keslick, and my pronouns are he/him. I'm currently an ASL English interpreter in the province of Ontario.
I'm speaking today from the traditional and unceded lands of the Mississaugas of the New Credit, the Anishinabe and the Haudenosaunee, lands that are governed under The Dish with One Spoon wampum treaty.
Please do forgive my nerves. This is my first time speaking in this kind of forum, so bear with me.
I currently have a bachelor's degree in linguistics, with a focus on language and power, as well as a bachelor's degree in interpretation, ASL English, with a focus on message analysis and intercultural discourse. I'm also a Catholic Christian and someone who identifies as a member of the LGBTQ2S+ community. I identify with the labels of queer, same-sex attracted, and/or gay.
I am very grateful to all those who made today possible: to Natasha Filoso-Timpson for her patience in corresponding with me to arrange for a notice of meeting, to those who were involved in the tech set-up, and to you, the members of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, for your time and attention today.
When I was asked to speak on the bill today, I was a bit defensive, as you may imagine. Conversion therapy is definitely a very triggering concept for a lot of people in the queer community, me included. Even now, as I'm talking, I can feel my heart beating more quickly and my eyes are watering up a bit. That's because of the experiences of friends, and also those of people who I may not have met, but I've certainly heard the stories of people who have either tried to pray the gay away or beat them until they repressed their same-sex desires.
In a more personal way, at one point I had gone to confession to a priest. I wasn't confessing that my sin was same-sex attraction. Being attracted to someone of the same sex is not viewed as a sin by the Catholic church, but I was confessing to something different and separate. That meeting resulted in it coming out that I was same-sex attracted, and I ended up being kept in a room and kind of restrained in a chair, while the priest kept trying to pray over me, trying to exorcise this demon of homosexuality from me.
I can say from a very deep place of personal lived experience and hurt that conversion therapy in its actual sense does harm. I also want to make it clear on this note that while that kind of experience can and does happen, and happened to me, I don't want it to seem that it's reflective of the majority of views of Catholic priests. It certainly is not of those whom I have had the honour and pleasure of interacting with. It's also not the experience of most Catholics who identify as queer individuals or those with same-sex attraction, but it doesn't make it any less wrong or any less hurtful. I just want to be transparent on that point.
Again, when I was originally asked to speak on this bill, I was like, “Well, I'm certainly not going to be speaking against the bill because I would actually fully support it.” As I said, I don't think conversion therapy should be allowed, and I don't think people should be able to ship off their queer family members or loved ones to a different country and have them go through that form of abuse there if it's outlawed here in Canada. At the same time, as I said, I stand by the decision against actual conversion therapy, but after reading through the actual draft of the legislation, however, I cannot support Bill C-6 in its current wording.
The value of the proposed bill is that it wants to reduce harm and it wants to prevent members of the queer community from being hurt simply because of something that they do not have any control over: something that they don't have any control over choosing, and something that—at least based on the majority of scientific and peer-reviewed articles that I've read—they can't change.
The problem for me, however, as someone who would have access to my services limited by this bill, is that the passing of this bill would cause harm to me. Because of various instances of emotional neglect growing up, I have very physically and emotionally unhealthy relationships. At times, these relationships have led me to being sexually assaulted, as well as emotionally manipulated. I currently see a counsellor, and we talk about ways for me to have better boundaries and to protect myself, and to make sure that any relationship I enter into is free, happy and healthy.
Under this bill, this kind of therapy would be taken away from me. The bill doesn't make any distinctions between good therapy or bad therapy. The bill would capture my therapy as one that wants to reduce non-heterosexual attraction or, more specifically, sexual behaviour. Without realizing that my therapy isn't actually trying to stop me from dating any guy, it's simply trying to stop me from dating the wrong guy. It's there trying to help me avoid people and situations that would harm me and have already harmed me.
The bill may not want to take away this kind of counselling, and I would applaud it for that, but the issue, however, is that the language right now is much too ambiguous and too far-reaching. If I were working and were trying to interpret this bill into ASL for a deaf consumer, I would definitely need to seek a lot of clarification and do additional research outside of the context of the bill to find out what is and is not included.
That kind of ambiguity in a piece of legislation this important is very concerning to me. I think the bill needs to be amended to clarify the definition of conversion therapy. I don't want the good counselling that I have received to be taken away from me, and as it is right now, the bill doesn't guarantee that. The goal of this bill is to prevent harm from coming to the queer community and to prevent harm from being done to the queer community, but as it is right now, the bill would take my counselling away from me, and that would cause harm.
Again, thank you very much for your time and attention. After the other witnesses, with permission from the chair, I am open to any questions.
Thank you.
12:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Iqra Khalid
Thank you very much, Mr. Keslick.
We'll now go to Dr. Travis Salway.
Please go ahead.
12:15 p.m.
Dr. Travis Salway Assistant Professor, Faculty of Health Sciences, Simon Fraser University, As an Individual
Thank you, Madam Chair, for having me here today.
I use he/him pronouns.
I am joining you from the unceded Coast Salish territories of Tsleil-Waututh, Squamish and Musqueam nations, and I'm grateful to them.
I want to start by humbly acknowledging outspoken Canadian advocates who have endured conversion therapy and told and retold their traumatic stories in order for us to finally take action. Thank you, to Erika Muse, Matt Ashcroft, Jules Sherred, Harper Perrin, Sonya Taylor, Peter Gajdics, David Kinitz, Victor Szymanski and many more.
I'm here to share statistics and stories my colleagues and I have collected over the past year from hundreds of Canadians who have experienced conversion therapy. This research has convinced me that the current draft of the federal bill leaves many instances of conversion therapy untouched. Our research started with a national survey of 9,000 gay, bisexual, queer, trans, and two-spirit men conducted just last year. We found that one in 10, corresponding to tens of thousands of individuals, had experienced conversion therapy in Canada. To better understand how so many Canadians could continue to be exposed to these practices, we interviewed and surveyed, in English and French, 50 individuals who had direct experiences with conversion therapy.
One of the most important things we learned is that none of these individuals simply showed up to a service advertised to change a person’s sexual orientation or gender identity. Acknowledging this, we presented participants with the exact definition of conversion therapy included in the draft bill before you, and half told us that this definition did not encompass their experiences. One explained that the service he attended was described to him as a “pursuit for purity”, thereby skirting the language of being “designed to change [his] sexual orientation.” Nonetheless, the premise of this service, as with all conversion therapies, was that living as an out LGBTQ2 person was unacceptable and avoidable. This led us to conclude that the defining feature of so-called conversion therapies is not conversion but, rather, the goal of rejecting LGBTQ2 lives as compatible with being happy and healthy. For these reasons, I recommend that the definition of conversion therapy be amended to clarify that conversion therapy includes all sustained efforts that proceed from an assumption that certain sexual orientations, gender identities, or gender expressions are disordered, pathological, or less desirable than others.
Next, I will speak to the experiences of study participants who attended conversion therapy as adults. While the risk of coercion by parents and other adults may decrease with age, the psychosocial outcomes associated with conversion therapy—including isolation, anxiety, and suicide—persist. Moreover, many Canadians continue to rely upon familial support well into their 20s and beyond, making the age-18 threshold arbitrary in this context. Even for those who have moved away from home, the choice to attend conversion therapy is a false choice. One interviewee explained that his parents threatened to stop paying for his university education if he did not comply with their wish for him to reject a gay identity. For these reasons, I recommend expanding conversion therapy protections to people of all ages.
Third, I want to emphasize the critical importance of ensuring that this bill fully accounts for conversion therapy that affects transgender and non-binary people. In our national survey, conversion therapy exposure was twice as high—20%—among trans and non-binary respondents, likely owing to pervasive transphobia across multiple Canadian institutions today. As you heard from Erika Muse this morning, trans conversion therapy remains insidious, in many cases condoned by licensed professionals who claim to act in their patients’ best interests.
To trans people listening: I want you to know that I and many others see you and celebrate you for who you are.
To cisgender people listening: I encourage you to express this sentiment without hesitation to trans people in Canada.
For these reasons, I recommend that the committee adopt the recommendations offered by Erika, by legal scholar Florence Ashley, and by over 500 individuals and organizations that have signed our open letter, which will ensure equity for trans people when it comes to this bill.
Finally, I want to note that we cannot rely on a single legislative action to eradicate all conversion therapy. A fully effective strategy will require bans at multiple levels of government, as well as LGBTQ2-affirming educational resources. For these reasons, I urge that a statement be added to the preamble of the bill reiterating the need for provinces and territories to continue to pass regulatory laws, which can work in complementary ways to federal legislation.
Thank you for your time.
12:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Iqra Khalid
Thank you very much, Dr. Salway.
We'll now go to Emmanuel Sanchez for five minutes.
Go ahead.
12:20 p.m.
Emmanuel Sanchez As an Individual
Honourable members of Parliament, good afternoon. My name is Emmanuel. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to share my personal story with you.
I see that Dr. Salway has failed to accurately represent his interview of my story and of my journey, so allow me to share it with you.
I was around five years old the first time I noticed that I was attracted to the same sex. At first I didn't pay much attention to the attraction; however, as I grew older I began to notice it more and more. I endured a lot of bullying in school at the hands of other boys. As a result of the bullying and previous abuse I had gone through, I drew nearer to girls in a desire for safety and protection. I was called fag, queer and girly. This bullying really belittled me and caused me great confusion.
I began to question my sexual orientation and gender identity. At the age of 12 years I severely hated myself and regretted being alive. I felt incredibly lonely during this time and didn't feel safe confiding in anyone. I thought my only option was to end my life, but I'm so thankful that all attempts to do so failed.
In my teen years I began to explore gay culture on the Internet. I deeply longed to understand my sexuality, who I was and where I belonged. When I turned 16, I decided to identify as gay. I greatly feared rejection and ostracization from my family, friends and faith community.
I began to engage in same-sex relationships and to visit gay bars in efforts to fully accept myself and embrace this new identity. Although not everyone in my life agreed with the decisions I was making, they were all very loving, caring and supportive of me as an individual.
I was never asked or required to change my behaviour or what I believed in in order to belong. During this time I was told by many outside the community I regularly surrounded myself with that as long as I was happy and living my truth, that's all that mattered. I agreed with them, or so I thought.
As a 16-year-old, I realized that even though I was doing everything that society says will make me happy, I was still very unsettled. On my own initiative I chose to regularly meet with a counsellor who compassionately cared for me. She affirmed my sexual identity and encouraged me to continue living the life that I was living.
Week after week I would hear the same message and I would leave feeling just as confused as when I walked in. Seeing that I was not getting the support I needed, I sought out counselling, this time from a pastor at a church. He was incredibly compassionate and caring and neither affirmed nor condemned the decisions I was making or my sexual identity. In fact, we didn't even address those points at first.
Instead, we began to tackle the difficulties I had walked through as child. As I went on that journey each week that I met with him, I was able to identify the lies that I was believing about myself and I began to experience a truth that restored my heart. I started to see life differently and deeply loved it. Joy began to swell within me. I began to see myself for who Jesus truly created me to be.
As a result, I decided I no longer wanted to continue the course my life was on. I ceased to engage in same-sex relationships and instead sought to live my life in a way that was consistent with my faith and beliefs.
I am very thankful to have received the guidance and support I freely sought out as a teenager. Had it not been for that, I don't think I would be breathing today and sharing this story with you.
The counselling I received didn't remove all my same-sex attractions. However, I found a deep joy and fulfilment in not engaging in same-sex behaviours, in order to live in accordance with my beliefs and convictions. I and many others like me, young and old, regularly rely on the support of counsellors and mentors to help us to continue the life we have chosen.
I understand that this is not a popular opinion. I'm not asking you, however, to agree with our decisions; I am simply asking that you acknowledge that people like me exist.
I stand with you in your efforts to see LGBTQ+ individuals protected and loved. Therefore, I ask that you create a well-written bill that truly bans coercive and abusive methods while respecting the individual's freedom at any age to chose the type of support they want and their desired goal. I trust you will make a decision that will benefit and protect the citizens of Canada while upholding fundamental rights and freedoms.
Let's move forward together and ensure that our land and our people continue to be glorious and free.
Thank you so much for your time and for listening to my story.
12:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Iqra Khalid
Thank you, Mr. Sanchez.
We'll now go to Adrienne Smith.
You have five minutes. Go ahead.
12:25 p.m.
Adrienne Smith Lawyer, Adrienne Smith Law
Thank you, Chairperson.
My name is Adrienne Smith.
I'm joining you today from the unceded territories of the Musqueam, the Tsleil-Waututh, and the Squamish people as well. As an uninvited settler in occupation, I'm committed to a decolonization that involves reparations and the return of land.
I am a social justice lawyer and a non-binary person. I use they/them and their pronouns.
In French, the masculine or neuter pronoun is “il”.
I could answer your questions in French.
In support of my submission today, I am submitting a written brief. I'm grateful to appear in support of Bill C-6, which seeks to regulate, by criminal sanction, practices that seek to convert queer and trans people by force or coercion.
Having listened carefully to other witnesses in the debate on this bill, I have three main points. The first is about the definition. The second is about the charter compliance of the bill. The third is about the necessity to protect transgender people in the sanction that is sought.
First, with respect to the definition, all parties have agreed about what we're talking about and all have expressed their will to stop it. Still, I note, the committee is encountering challenges to the scope of the bill from those who would seek greater certainty. With respect, the practice of conversion is abusive and fraudulent, and in no way bears any similarity to the distracting hypotheticals that you are hearing about or the kinds of counselling that people have witnessed to today that have been helpful to them. Those practices will still be allowed.
Again, with respect, I see people who are raising concerns repeatedly and are doing so for political reasons, based possibly on their opposition to the core of the bill and not in good faith. I work as a criminal lawyer. I have no concerns about what this bill says. I dispute that there would be a chill on legitimate care.
This bill would end coercive programs that seek to undermine the sexual orientation and gender identity of two-spirit, queer and trans people. It would not unduly limit spiritual and parental guidance unless that guidance seeks by force to convert, in which case it should be captured by the prohibition.
I agree that importing the terms of “gender identity and expression” from Bill C-16 would clarify.
I think that would be a helpful clarification.
With respect to the charter, I would recommend a brief amendment. I think, to start, the bill is charter-proof as it stands. I would recommend that the committee consider an amendment that would close the dangerous loophole with respect to adults. As drafted, the bill would allow adults to consent to conversion practices. It seems to me that the drafters of the bill have left this loophole out of fear that there would be a charter challenge.
I heard Minister Lametti ask for input, and I have some. I think the prohibition on this dangerous activity would be charter compliant for adults because it is a valid practice of the criminal law that's not in conflict with provincial power. The provinces agree this isn't valid health care. The harm is clear. The bill is carefully tailored to capture the harm. There would be a minimal infringement on religious practices that would sanction this type of abuse. Benevolent religious practices would not be captured by the scope of the bill.
Finally, the minister knows that the charter is not unlimited and is restricted by section 1, which sets out limits that are reasonably necessary in a free and democratic society. The protection of people standing farthest from justice is a reasonable limit. Sound medical care would still be allowed if you prohibit consent to abuse by adults, as I recommend. If you do not insert such language, we should tighten up the language around what consent means in this setting.
Finally, trans people need to be included within the wording of this bill. You've been urged by some witnesses, who are not friends of my community, to peel back protections for non-binary people. I think these folks seek to draw Parliament and this committee into an unhelpful debate about the merits of gender-affirming health care. That question is not before you. To be clear, many of these arguments unmasked of artifice deny the inherent dignity of queer and trans people.
As a result, I strongly recommend a slight amendment and that you adopt this bill.
Thank you.
12:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Iqra Khalid
Thank you very much for that.
We'll now go into our first round of questions, starting with Mr. Lewis for six minutes.
Go ahead, sir.
12:30 p.m.
Conservative
Chris Lewis Conservative Essex, ON
Thank you, Madam Chair. I certainly appreciate the opportunity to ask questions of these amazing witnesses.
To Mr. Keslick, you mentioned that you felt nervous in the beginning. I think you are a seasoned pro already, and that was a job very well done.
This is for both Mr. Keslick and Mr. Sanchez. Earlier this week the Minister of Justice said that he felt the bill was clear enough that it would not infringe on good faith conversations. To both of you, what is your message to the minister on this?
12:35 p.m.
As an Individual
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.
12:35 p.m.
ASL-English Interpreter, As an Individual
I would echo Emmanuel's comments. In terms of the spirit of the bill and the intention behind it, I very strongly support it, but there are two main issues for me just about its lack of clarity.
One, again, is that, because there aren't any limiting terms, the scope is too broad. Proposed section 320.101 identifies conversion therapy as a “practice, treatment or service” and then anything “to repress or reduce non-heterosexual attraction or sexual behaviour”.
That last part, the sexual behaviour, would unnecessarily exclude anyone who is seeking sex and love addiction counselling services regardless. For example, for me, I'm not intending to seek to change my actual attractions. I'm not trying to become a straight individual. I'm simply trying to reduce harm in the way that I engage with that particular attraction, and that definition of harm does not come from a particular faith or religious community. It's from some folks that I have heard today who have alluded to it. It's just based on scientific study.
There are a lot of studies that are unbiased and not related to any kind of faith background or secular background. It's just a peer-reviewed study identifying that sex addiction is harmful regardless of the community: homosexual, heterosexual and anyone on the spectrum of gender identity. So, really, there's a lack of clarifying terms, such as “coercion”. And then also there's the language of reducing sexual behaviour and non-heterosexual sexual behaviour, which is not very clearly defined.
Other witnesses have said that the intent is not to exclude those helpful practices, but as it stands, just as I'm looking at the document, that's not very clear, so I think that should be amended.
12:35 p.m.
Conservative
Chris Lewis Conservative Essex, ON
Thank you to both the witnesses.
Madam Chair, this is for you to Mr. Sanchez.
I think all Canadians agree that coercive, harmful practices that forcibly try to alter a person's sexual orientation should be banned. You raised concerns with how this bill is structured, in that it risks banning good-faith conversations to help individuals navigate their sexual identify. In your opinion, sir, would it be beneficial to clearly outline in the bill that those conversations would not be impacted?
12:35 p.m.
As an Individual
Thank you for your question, Mr. Lewis.
Yes, as I said earlier, I definitely think there needs to be greater clarification defined within the bill. I think what's really important and what I see as a danger is the government's trying to regulate sexual behaviour. I understand that regulating certain methods is important, and that's why I stand with all who are opposed to conversion therapy, coercion and abuse to regulate those methods that are not healthful and that are, as Dr. Salway said, unscientific and unfounded. There's just no proof of their working.
I see the need to have regulation against that, but my concern is that they are not just attempting to regulate methods but attempting to regulate what I should and shouldn't believe. Whether I have sex with a guy or not—excuse my bluntness—is my choice, and if I choose to see a counsellor or see a mentor who is helping me to not engage in same-sex relationships or same-sex sexual activity, that should be my choice as well.
To be honest with you, I don't have an incredible debating point to make about what the law should say or how it should be structured. I'm just hoping that Mr. Lametti and the other members of the committee who are in charge of formulating this bill together can take into consideration my story.
As I said in my presentation, out of the 50 people whom Dr. Salway interviewed, one of them was me, but he obviously failed to include me in his study and in his presentation of it. I'm really hoping that members of Parliament can take me, Timothy and many others around Canada like me—young adults, old adults and teenagers—into consideration.
Thank you so much, Mr. Lewis.