Evidence of meeting #137 for Status of Women in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was kids.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Bloc
Andréanne Larouche Bloc Shefford, QC
Mr. Jensen and Ms. Johnstone, I see you nodding your head. I'll come back to other themes in my next turns to speak.
Do you have anything else to add on the issue of online hate speech or artificial intelligence?
Director of Legal, Egale Canada
I will answer in English.
I defer to my fellow witness on the specifics, but I think he's exactly right.
In response to your point, Madam Chair, I think freedom of expression is often misunderstood in this context. There are so many spaces in which expressive content is appropriately regulated. Freedom of expression isn't intended to mean that there can be no rules around appropriate speech in particular contexts.
There is much more to say about that, but I'll leave it there.
Executive Director, Society of Queer Momentum
I will also make a few brief remarks in English.
I would just say that online hate is the same issue as in-person hate.
We need to support these kinds of dialogues in local communities to fund the organizations. They're chatting with young folks to help them understand because we're seeing the radicalization of our young folks through far-right groups, and so I would just say that there is a path forward.
Conservative
Bloc
Andréanne Larouche Bloc Shefford, QC
The interpretation is working now, but there was no interpretation for about 15 seconds. Perhaps the last few comments could be repeated.
Conservative
Executive Director, Society of Queer Momentum
I would say it's the same issue online or off-line. We need public education, support for the organizations that are there to have these conversations in schools and with families. We take the fire out of this by getting back to everyday dialogue with folks who may look or think differently from us.
Conservative
NDP
Leah Gazan NDP Winnipeg Centre, MB
Thank you so much.
I want to build on what you were talking about, Mr. Jensen, about freedom of speech—what I actually call "inciting hate". The he CSIS report 2023 said:
The ideologically motivated violent extremism [IMVE] threat is complex, constantly evolving, and fueled by entities [individuals, cells, groups, or networks] driven by a range of influences rather than a single belief system.
I'm going to give you an example of how freedom of speech has been politicized: Jordan Peterson lost his licence to practise psychology because of inciting hate—transphobia, misogyny, anti-indigenous racism and residential school denialism. Why is it dangerous for political leaders to lift up folks, who have been charged with inciting hate, in the name of freedom of speech?
Director of Legal, Egale Canada
Thank you for the question. I'm just scribbling notes. I'll make a few comments.
I think the first, almost academic, point is that much of our law and thinking around freedom of expression was developed in the context of the town square. What it doesn't account for is the power of the multiplication, which can happen online, with all of the other examples that are coming up. I would just encourage the committee, through the chair, and everyone to know that it doesn't translate perfectly, and there's still a tremendous amount of space for online regulation that doesn't violate the right to freedom of expression.
The second thing I would say, in moving into professional speech—which was the context of the Jordan Peterson case—and professional discipline, there are limits on what we as professionals can say in the context of our profession. For example, lawyers are restricted in what we can and can't say in court all the time. There are protocols, as in this committee, about how we need to direct our comments and what we can and can't talk about.
Similarly, the bargain for—
NDP
Leah Gazan NDP Winnipeg Centre, MB
Why is that dangerous for a leader to lift up somebody like Jordan Peterson?
Director of Legal, Egale Canada
What I would say is that it's dangerous when that nuance is lost and people like Mr. Peterson are held up as some sort of beacon of free speech. There's a lot of misinformation built into that.
NDP
Leah Gazan NDP Winnipeg Centre, MB
Yes. It's disinformation, I would say—absolute disinformation—based on much of what you said.
I just want to go on to disinformation. I know that a lot of the arguments have been around deforming bodies, and I find it hilarious because women have been getting boob jobs and facelifts since time immemorial, so I know it's not about plastic surgery and deforming bodies. Is that not right?
I ask that because, Fae, you spoke about an attack on bodily autonomy, and I've been speaking a lot about how—going after trans bodies and women's right to choose—there is an overall attack on bodily autonomy, which is often based on disinformation and fuelled by folks politically right now. Have you seen a shift, in recent years, of a growing attack on bodily autonomy?
Executive Director, Society of Queer Momentum
Absolutely. I think, first and foremost, that if we look to what's happening in the U.S., there's a trajectory that plays out. There's a playbook being used here, and it often starts with trans kids in the classroom and this misinformation around litter boxes. Then it jumps to transpeople and young folks as health care. Then it becomes the precedent of governments restricting the ability of parents to get their kids the health care that is recommended by their family physicians, which is what we're seeing in Alberta. If we did that on any other kind of care, we would see outrage across the political spectrum. However, we've seen silence from certain sides of the political spectrum because it's about trans kids. Just after that policy was introduced or alluded to by Premier Smith, you saw pro-life organizations leaning in further. When Mr. Lamrock alluded to mail-ins in New Brunswick, those were paid for by Campaign Life Coalition, the anti-abortion lobby, who are playing a long game here to restrict the access for trans kids to their health care and to set a precedent to remove bodily autonomy from women and gender-diverse people with regard to other forms of health care, too.
NDP
Leah Gazan NDP Winnipeg Centre, MB
Thank you.
I mean, these are charter rights—and this is for you, Mr. Jensen. I don't understand this. We have a Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Provinces are also obliged to uphold the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Why is this happening?
Director of Legal, Egale Canada
I wish I had an answer, but I can confirm that everything being proposed...or that the three pieces of legislation that passed in Alberta last week are violations of charter rights, quite simply. We saw, in Saskatchewan, that a court agreed with us that the so-called pronoun policy would cause irreparable harm if it was allowed to continue into effect, and then the notwithstanding clause was used. We're in a dangerous moment in this country, as well, with the increased comfort with the notwithstanding clause.
NDP
Leah Gazan NDP Winnipeg Centre, MB
Premiers are using a notwithstanding clause to just usurp charter rights. Is that right?
Director of Legal, Egale Canada
It's possible. Obviously, the notwithstanding clause can be used federally, so I hope—
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Shelby Kramp-Neuman
Thanks, Leah.
Mrs. Vien, you have the floor for five minutes.
December 9th, 2024 / 11:50 a.m.
Conservative
Dominique Vien Conservative Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, QC
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you all for being here today. We're very pleased to have you.
Ms. Johnstone, this is not the first time we've seen each other.
I want to start by setting the record straight. I think it's important to do so.
Ms. Johnstone, I thought you were being a bit unfair when you targeted the Conservatives. I think we're off to a bad start. The Conservatives as you describe them are not what I see in the party to which I belong. Since you mentioned Mr. Poilievre—you named him—I invite you, in all friendship, to read what has been written about Mr. Poilievre and the statements he has made. I am thinking in particular of his statement that women have the freedom to control their own bodies and to have an abortion, if that is what they want. Mr. Poilievre has clearly positioned himself as pro-choice.
I would also like to inform you, if you don't already know, that our political party includes people who are part of the LGBTQ+ community. One of them holds a very senior position, that of deputy leader. She was appointed by Mr. Poilievre. Let's be careful. Let's not conflate things that may make the Conservative Party look bad. Our party actually voted against conversion therapy. I wanted to let you know.
I will conclude by saying that Mr. Poilievre was clear on the fact that he would never open the abortion debate or introduce a bill on that issue.
I'll get back to the conversation we need to have today. This is a complicated study. We're talking about violence against various groups in society.
We, the Conservatives, are against violence of any kind. Our mantra is well known to everyone, and everyone has understood it well. It's about making the victim our primary concern, as violence has increased across the country. Violent crime is up 116% over the past nine years.
I wonder if it might also be a question of culture. I am a former member of the Quebec National Assembly. A friend of mine, my former press secretary, is openly gay. He is openly gay. He came from France, and he left that country at 18 because he wasn't able to live as a homosexual. He came to Canada, and he's flourishing today. When he went to a Maghreb country, he wasn't even able to share a room with his spouse. In the morning, they had to separate so that nothing would be obvious.
Homosexuality is not a problem. In any case, it doesn't bother me. There are gays in my family, among my friends and in our community. Wouldn't it be a cultural issue to reach out and welcome those who are different?
Ms. Johnstone, you said you went to meet with people on the ground to better understand this reality and to reach out. I am not sure it is a good idea to exclude parents or to target them just because they want to have information about what is going on at school. I'm a mom, and I'm old enough to be a grandmother. I would like to have that information about my child at school. Does that make me someone who is against trans people? No, it does not. I sincerely believe that there are people who are not born in the right body. I'm sure of it.
I'm here to make a comment and express how I feel. That's what I have done this morning. I think our guests appreciate that.
It's a matter of understanding the problem and seeing how we can address it. Parents need reassurance about all this. At the end of the day, you can't exclude parents from these situations. Violence against trans people, to me, is unacceptable. I would very much like you to be able to show leadership and meet with people in our schools and community centres. I also hope that we can continue to inform people about diversity, as Mr. Jensen so aptly said in his opening remarks.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Shelby Kramp-Neuman
Thank you, Mrs. Vien.
Pam, you have the floor for five minutes.
Liberal
Pam Damoff Liberal Oakville North—Burlington, ON
Thank you.
Ms. Johnstone, I just want to say that I, too, am 5'11”. I actually love meeting women with whom I can look eye to eye.