Evidence of meeting #141 for Canadian Heritage in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was rights.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Liberal
Taleeb Noormohamed Liberal Vancouver Granville, BC
Madam Chair, I am happy following this. Mr. Kurek just had a full round, a full five minutes.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Hedy Fry
Well, you'll have a full round, and then we go to the two minutes after that, two and a half.
Liberal
Taleeb Noormohamed Liberal Vancouver Granville, BC
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I'd first like to go to you, Ms. Johnstone, because I think you have a lot to contribute to this conversation that we haven't yet heard.
One of the things that has troubled me is that there has been a consistent pattern among the Conservative Party of voting against the rights of 2SLGBTQI+ Canadians, whether it was the consistent votes against conversion therapy or running a candidate in the by-election right now in Cloverdale—Langley City who has said that you can “pray the gay away”. There are these types of tropes, these types of ideas that trans people have “mental health disorders”, which is a quote from the Conservative Party convention in 2023. In my view, while people are using their freedom of expression, I think there would be a profoundly negative impact on the LGBT community.
Can you share a little bit from your work of what you have seen when politicians engage in rhetoric like that and put their names on ballots and what message that sends?
Executive Director, Queer Momentum
Absolutely.
I have been disappointed to see the trajectory of Canada's Conservative Party in recent years.
I remember Michelle Rempel Garner, I think it was, and the deputy leader, Melissa Lantsman, who have both been proponents of bringing the Conservative Party into the 21st century and shedding this legacy of homophobia and transphobia, and I miss those days.
I remember seeing that evolution when the opposition to marriage equality was removed from the Conservative Party policy book. I looked on with dread when, at their last convention, we saw two anti-trans policies pass with overwhelming support and no Conservative members of Parliament were speaking out in opposition. We've seen no Conservative speak out with Premier Smith denying health care access to trans kids and their families, with her government literally putting itself between parents and the health care their kids need.
The impact is, as you know, folks living in fear, and the reinforcement of stigma and shame. Many generations of queer and trans people grew up in schools and communities that taught us to hate ourselves. It's only in the last decade that we've seen this shift, but now this period of backlash is recreating that environment of stigma, of hostility. I can't stop thinking about the mom in Alberta who might have to leave her province to get her kid access to health care. I can't help but think about the kid in Saskatchewan who simply wants to be themself and is hearing a schoolyard bully parrot the language of their premier in order to mistreat and bully that child.
I hope that the Conservative Party comes into 2024 and stops taking issue with my community, who simply want to be ourselves, to contribute to society and make Canada a country where freedom includes everybody.
Liberal
Taleeb Noormohamed Liberal Vancouver Granville, BC
You talk about freedom, and I would love your thoughts, because there's something that I have never really understood. Why are Conservatives so triggered by pronouns?
Executive Director, Queer Momentum
I wish I knew.
Often there is this oversimplification. I'm stumped, honestly, on why. At the end of the day, it's basic dignity and basic respect. I like to joke that I have a trans spouse. I've screwed up their pronouns and we still got married. The world did not end. People make mistakes, but what's happening right now is that they're trying to use these as wedge issues. They're trying to use these to propagate fear and to create this illusion that we're pushing an agenda.
My agenda is the same agenda that gay people and trans people have been pushing forward for generations: That is one where society stops discriminating against us, where we stop experiencing socio-economic disadvantage.
There's nothing radical about that agenda. There is simply the idea of extending this dream of what Canada can be to include a new group of Canadians.
Liberal
Taleeb Noormohamed Liberal Vancouver Granville, BC
I would argue that it isn't a question of new or old. I think that if we're all equal and we all have the right to be who we are, some people have the right to be ignorant. Some people have the right to do whatever they feel.
I guess the question at the end of the day—and I know there are some really good people on this committee from all parties and I do enjoy serving with them—is, what would you say to them? What would you say to them as an opportunity to go back to their party leadership and members of their party who have increasingly taken positions that are certainly anti-trans?
You know, it's an easy community to bully, right? It's a small community. You've historically been part of a community that's not had the same protections and freedoms afforded to you. What would you say to them? What would you say to them on behalf of kids, on behalf of adults, on behalf of members of the trans community who just want to be left alone?
Executive Director, Queer Momentum
I would say, speak with us and don't speak over us. I would say, listen to the voices of trans people and understand what's at stake.
There are many Conservatives who are reticent around this direction for the party, and I think that many don't understand what's really going on here.
There is a powerful anti-LGBT lobby. It's tied into a powerful anti-choice lobby and they're trying to use trans people as a scapegoat to mess with access to reproductive health care, to legitimize government putting itself between, again, young people, and families or everyday Canadians and health care that social conservatives simply disagree with.
They're using trans people and anti-trans rhetoric to normalize overriding the charter-protected rights of Canadians. That includes, yes, queer and trans people, but that also includes workers and that includes racialized Canadians and people of various faiths.
I hope folks understand what is at stake here, because, yes, it's my community's equality and rights, but if you allow one community to be stomped on in an environment polluted by hate speech, it takes away the rights of everybody.
Liberal
Taleeb Noormohamed Liberal Vancouver Granville, BC
In the minute I have left, I would like to go back to Ms. Al-Azem.
You've just heard—
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Hedy Fry
Mr. Noormohamed, you do not have a minute left. You're at five minutes. I'm sorry.
I'm going to Mr. Champoux for two and a half minutes.
Bloc
Martin Champoux Bloc Drummond, QC
Professor Bernadet, earlier we talked about the fear of university leaders and professors, who don't feel adequately supported when overly sensitive students feel they have the right to protest against things that offend their values.
Earlier, you said something that really resonated with me about artistic creations—SLĀV and Kanata, in particular—that have been subject to popular pressure leading to the cancellation of performances. You said it wasn't the activists, but the organizers who cancelled everything. You're right, it was indeed they who made the decision not to present the shows in question.
Don't we see the same phenomenon when artists censor themselves to avoid facing, precisely, this growing popular pressure of people who protest against everything and anything according to their personal convictions and hypersensitivity? Aren't we experiencing the same problem in the arts as you are, particularly, in academia?
I know we don't have much time, but I find the issue extremely important. Can you elaborate on this?
Associate Professor, McGill University, As an Individual
That's a difficult question, because we're not talking about the same environments, obviously.
What we're witnessing in the artistic field is perhaps a form of moralization or politicization of art. But this is nothing new. These are perfectly normal movements. It's a possible type of aesthetic.
If there's one place where freedom of expression can be found, it's in the creative world. I think that's where it's found in its maximum form.
Conversely, there are also difficulties on the other side, i.e., fears about forms of literary or artistic expression that may be transphobic or pedophilic, for example. This raises a number of questions. We no longer look at texts in the same way we did 20 or 30 years ago. From this point of view, we're seeing a mutation, and that seems normal to me.
That said, the question again arises from exchanges, for example, on texts of pedophilic inspiration. We then have to ask ourselves whether we're on the side of hatred or incitement to this kind of thing, which could legitimize prosecution or challenges.
Associate Professor, McGill University, As an Individual
I think it's hard to put things on the same level, including the issue of so-called sensitive readers.
Liberal
NDP
Lindsay Mathyssen NDP London—Fanshawe, ON
Thank you, Chair.
Ms. Johnstone, you spoke to it and many others have spoken to it in different ways. It's about the leadership that is shown by specific politicians, and that linking, that walking up against that line of what is hate speech, what is freedom of expression, and the use of certain language, how that's adopted and how, from certain far-right hate groups, there are those dog whistles.... It speaks to them, and it may not be outright, but it exists there.
Can you talk about the impact that's had and what you've seen in terms of walking that line? We see it often in social media. We see it as politicians ourselves and how it's used against us, but how should we, as the leadership, fight against that as well?
Executive Director, Queer Momentum
Often, we use simple language because it resonates with the public and it's easy. We have this ability to use a term like “parental rights”. It creates an environment where we're therefore opposed to parental rights, which is far from the truth.
It takes nuance out of the conversation, and I think it forces us into a black or white equation where it's us versus them. That is actually where a lot of danger comes in. I think that is what contributes to this environment of polarization, where people's dignity and human rights are becoming political issues, when they should be just a baseline.
I think we are seeing Conservative politicians, particularly Premier Smith in Alberta, but also Mr. Poilievre federally, using this language because they know it will go over the heads of many folks who hear that term. It resonates with them, so they think, “Yes, of course. Who wouldn't support the rights of parents?” However, this anti-LGBTQ lobby is hearing that language, and they're saying, “Oh, this guy's in our camp. He's going to back us up,” and they're going to go and knock on doors and expect Poilievre to deliver on their issues and priorities.
That agenda is one that sees regression on my rights and on my freedom, and sees a Canada where parents of LGBTQ kids have to be worried about putting their kid on the bus, about getting their kids health care and about their kids being safe to grow up as healthy, thriving adults.
NDP
Lindsay Mathyssen NDP London—Fanshawe, ON
What does that distraction accomplish at the end of the day?
Executive Director, Queer Momentum
It takes away from the issues that most people want our governments to act on. My priorities in Canada for our federal government are actually housing, affordability and health care. When politicians have a hard time delivering on those issues and don't have solutions to the big problems facing Canadians, they dabble with these divisive politics and these wedge issues because they don't want to answer questions about the real solutions and priorities Canadians have and want to see their government act on.
November 25th, 2024 / 5:35 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Hedy Fry
Thank you very much, Ms. Johnstone.
Now we'll go to Mrs. Goodridge for two and a half minutes.
Conservative
Laila Goodridge Conservative Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, AB
Thank you.
Thank you to all our witnesses for being here today.
Because I have very little time, I'm going to get right to it.
Father de Souza, do you believe the government should be censoring speech?
As an Individual
Generally, no. There are obviously certain things like national security issues, and we have quite complicated jurisprudence in Canada about hateful speech. Some other witnesses made distinctions there, but I think, generally, no. That's why we have section 2(b) of the charter.
Conservative
Laila Goodridge Conservative Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, AB
Mr. Le Blanc, do you think the government should be in favour of or in charge of censorship?
Full Professor, Department of Philosophy, University of Ottawa, As an Individual
I think “censorship” is not the word you want to use.
I agree with Father de Souza, but I would add that, in any case, there are rules that determine hate speech, speech that attacks the dignity of the person and speech that attacks the concept of equality. Personally, I think we already have the tools to deal with these things. In a functioning democracy, we need to encourage the most open exchanges and debates possible, not just at university, but everywhere.