Hon. Flordeliz (Gigi) Osler: Honourable senators, I rise today to speak to Inquiry No. 5 and the need to bring visibility to hatred towards 2SLGBTQI+ people and communities.

To start, let me share with you a moment in time that speaks about the impact of language. It was fall 2019, and I was giving a keynote address at a national medical meeting. I began the address by introducing myself as Dr. Gigi Osler and that my pronouns are she/her.

After I got off the stage, a colleague who was in the audience told me they had witnessed the person in front of them turn to the person beside them and say, “I never heard that before,” when I used my pronouns.

At the time, and still to this day, I am unclear if the person didn’t know what I meant when I used my pronouns or if they truly had never heard someone introduce themselves as she/her. Nevertheless, I was struck by how those five words — “My pronouns are she/her” — could start a broader conversation and raise awareness about how using gender identity terms such as pronouns can signal courtesy and acceptance.

In Canada, the acronym 2SLGBTQI+ represents two-spirit, lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, intersex — and the “I” of intersex considers sex characteristics beyond sexual orientation, gender identity and gender expression — and, finally, the “+” includes people who identify as part of sexual and gender-diverse communities who use additional terminologies.

“Cisgender” refers to a person who identifies with the gender they were assigned at birth. “Transgender” refers to a person whose gender identity differs from the sex they were assigned at birth. Although “sex” and “gender” are often used interchangeably, they have different meanings.

The Canadian Institutes of Health Research defines “sex” as:

. . . a set of biological attributes in humans and animals. It is primarily associated with physical and physiological features including chromosomes, gene expression, hormone levels and function, and reproductive/sexual anatomy. . . .

Sex is typically assigned at birth and is usually categorized as female or male, typically based on external anatomy.

In contrast, gender is a social construct. The Canadian Institutes of Health Research defines “gender” as:

. . . the socially constructed roles, behaviours, expressions and identities of girls, women, boys, men and gender diverse people. It influences how people perceive themselves and each other, how they act and interact, and the distribution of power and resources in society. Gender identity is not confined to a binary (girl/woman, boy/man) nor is it static; it exists along a continuum and can change over time. . . .

Inclusive language matters when it comes to countering 2SLGBTQI+ hate. A 2022 research study in the Canadian Medical Association Journal examined suicidality among sexual minority and transgender adolescents in Canada. The study found that compared with cisgender heterosexual adolescents, transgender adolescents showed 5 times the risk of suicidal ideation and 7.6 times the risk of suicide. The authors highlighted the need for inclusive prevention approaches to address suicidality among Canada’s diverse youth population.

Words matter because lives are at stake.

Both the Canadian Psychiatric Association and the Canadian Medical Association recognize that gender identity is a health issue and that people’s expression of sexual orientation and gender needs to be supported.

While Budget 2023 supports comprehensive sexual and reproductive health and education through the commitment of $36 million over three years to the Sexual and Reproductive Health Fund, more intentional commitments to counter rising 2SLGBTQI+ hate are needed.

Finally, I offer congratulations to Logan Oxenham, who is believed to be the first openly transgender person elected to the Manitoba legislature in the October 3 provincial election. MLA Oxenham wants to use his first-hand knowledge of navigating the health care system as a transgender man to bring about positive change. Transgender and gender-diverse people have long been under-represented in political office at all levels of government, and he wants to “. . . amplify voices who have traditionally not been heard in places such as the legislative building.”

The election of a transgender MLA provides much-needed visibility and representation for the transgender community in Manitoba. It sends a powerful message that transgender individuals can and should be active participants in the political and decision-making processes that affect our communities.

Bringing visibility to hatred and discrimination against 2SLGBTQI+ communities is an ongoing effort that requires the active involvement of individuals, communities, organizations and government bodies. By raising awareness, recognizing the root causes and implementing solutions, we can strive for a more inclusive and accepting society in Canada.

Thank you, meegwetch.

Hon. Andrew Cardozo: Honourable senators, it is my pleasure to join the discussion on 2SLGBTQI+ rights as raised in the last federal budget.

I want to take this opportunity to address a very specific policy here in the Senate, which is the recent decision by the Long Term Vision and Plan working group to have gender-neutral washrooms in the new and renovated Senate buildings. While surprisingly there has been some resistance, I am pleased to observe that the mainstream of the discussion was squarely based in the year 2023, and not in 1923.

[Translation]

I want to be as clear as possible as a senator in this chamber: I’m in favour of gender-neutral washrooms.

[English]

These washrooms will accommodate transgender Canadians and gender non-binary Canadians, the common word being “Canadians.”

As a bonus, as with most forms of accommodation, many other Canadians will benefit from and appreciate the measure. I speak of this as if it were the brand new invention of the private washrooms. Here is the thing. While accommodation is always a good thing for the reasons of human rights and respect, it almost always benefits other people beyond those who need it most.

Let me give you two examples. Back some 30 or 40 years ago, when buildings and sidewalks were being built to be more accessible to people in wheelchairs and those with mobility challenges, I became acutely aware that these measures were of great assistance to parents with young children. While I stayed home to raise my kids for a few years when they were little, there were countless times when those facilities made it possible for me as I lugged around two little kids and a stroller.

Facilities for people with disabilities greatly assisted all parents and caregivers of young children, who are much larger in number than those using wheelchairs. By the way, we are still not at 100% in terms of accessibility.

[Translation]

As a second example, when I was at the CRTC, one of the initiatives that we were working on was television closed captioning for people who are deaf and hard of hearing.

[English]

Today, subtitling on television remains a very successful program that pays for itself through advertising and sponsorship, and it is widely used for the benefit of all who are patrons to bars, pubs and restaurants, as well as gyms and health centres. So, colleagues, the next time you find yourself reading subtitles on a TV screen at an airport, remember to thank the pioneers of this service — your fellow Canadians who are deaf and hard of hearing.

I will suggest the washrooms that accommodate “others” was probably a raging debate in this Parliament a century ago, two years after the first woman was elected to the House of Commons and seven years before the first woman was appointed to the Senate. The debate for an appropriate number of washrooms for women has been going on in the decades since, but I can just imagine the male fragility that yelled and hollered about having to give up their washrooms for their female colleagues, who they probably didn’t believe belonged in Parliament to begin with. And here we are, 100 years later, and at last we have a solution. It takes us a while, but we can get it done.

I want to congratulate Senator Tannas and the Long Term Vision and Plan Subcommittee as well as Senator Moncion and the Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration Committee and all other senators who have approached this with openness and respect.

I’d like to make one last point on minority rights, and this is my plea to all parliamentarians. Let me paraphrase what President Biden said a few days ago about hate. There is some deep hate in our society at all times that is just under the surface and just needs oxygen to give it life. In our debates as parliamentarians, let us be careful not to give oxygen to the darker forces in our society.

I understand that we are often dealing with issues that are new to some, complicated or threatening. As parliamentarians, perhaps we can do our best, when discussing complex and emotional issues, not to feed the darker forces in our society, even if it could bring short-term political benefit to some of us.

To those who don’t like the idea of a gender-neutral washroom, I say: Come on; join us. Let’s be respectful and welcoming to all, be they parliamentarians, staff or visitors. Parliament is the home of all Canadians, not just some Canadians. Trust me; you’re going to like the private washrooms. Thank you.

Hon. Mary Coyle: Honourable senators, I rise today to share my concern and some thoughts about the rising incidence of hate toward 2SLGBTQI+ people in Canada, and children in particular, by speaking to Inquiry No. 5, which draws attention to Budget 2023 and, in particular, the importance of the development of the National Action Plan on Combatting Hate.

Honourable colleagues, last Thursday, a headline in The Economist magazine declared, “The culture wars have come to Canada.” The article was about the so-called parental rights movement’s influence on education, laws and policies in New Brunswick and Saskatchewan, which take rights to privacy, safety and health away from trans children and youth and put educators in a very difficult position.

Colleagues, honestly, I am still shaken from my own encounter on September 20 with the front line of the divisive and polarizing culture wars. As I was trying to cross Wellington Street to get to my East Block office, I came across two groups of people separated by lines of police officers. On the south side of Wellington Street were people dressed in rainbow attire with signs encouraging people to teach love, not hate; to protect trans kids; and stating that trans rights are human rights.

In Canada, we know gender identity and gender expression are prohibited grounds for discrimination under the Canadian Human Rights Act. So I was okay. Across the street, on Parliament Hill, were people who had come to protest as part of the 1 Million March 4 Children. There I saw signs like “Boys, boys, girls, girls;” “Hands off our kids;” “Parents know best;” “Democracy not dictatorship;” and “Leave the kids alone.”

This may seem innocuous, but there was a dangerous subtext. According to the Canadian Anti-Hate Network, by using a phrase like “parental rights” — which many parents would find natural and unobjectionable — as a stand-in for anti-trans rights and anti-child rights, the movement drives not only anti-2SLGBTQI+ activists but also concerned and misinformed parents to endorse that philosophy and join that movement.

I was profoundly disturbed by what I was witnessing. It felt dangerous for 2SLGBTQI+ people and kids. It felt dangerous for parents who appeared to be caught in a web of deceit, and it felt dangerous, frankly, for Canada.

Amarnath Amarasingam, a Queen’s University expert on extremism says:

Anti-COVID stuff and anti-vaccine stuff was like a bug light to so many different movements. And now all of those movements are listening to whatever that next issue was going to be, and following it.

He predicted the shift to 2SLGBTQI+ issues. In that Toronto Star article, Bruce Arthur wrote that “protests like this are like a thermometer of societal health, and the fever is rising.”

In their article, “How the ‘parental rights’ movement gave rise to the 1 Million March 4 Children,” Professors Mason and Hamilton of Mount Royal University explained how the parental rights movement is not new. In the 1970s, in the U.S., “parental rights” and “protecting the children” mantras were used to oppose protections against discrimination for lesbians and gay men. Today, that “parental rights” movement in the U.S. is fuelled by Moms for Liberty, a known anti-government extremist organization with ties to White nationalists, including the Proud Boys. Groups like Action4Canada have taken up the parental‑rights torch in Canada. They are calling for the end of inclusive curricula and restricting the use of chosen names and pronouns in schools.

The two groups behind the 1 Million March 4 Children are Family [Heart] Freedom, which targets educational content on sexual orientation and gender identity resources, and the Hands Off Our Kids organization, a moniker clearly meant to evoke grooming and pedophilia, which is protesting so-called LGBTQIA+ ideology, whatever that is, in schools.

So, colleagues, what do we do about this? First, we need to listen to the people most at risk of harm and act accordingly. Alex Harris, a transgender student in New Brunswick, said the protests and discourse are creating a scary and dangerous environment for queer students. While his parents are supportive, he knows other kids who would be at risk of physical abuse or being kicked out of the home if they came out to their parents.

Second, we need to call out the people and organizations leading the so-called “parental rights” movement, shine a light on their true agenda and debunk the disinformation they are feeding to parents.

At the same time as we do that, though, the Canadian Anti‑Hate Network warns:

Framing all parents who desire to be actively involved in their children’s lives and who are personally troubled by the idea of another adult knowing things about their child that they themselves do not, as bigots and bad parents, does not help schools be safer . . . . It only drives them further into the . . . “Parental Rights” Movement.

The Canadian Anti-Hate Network suggests that we focus on shared values, such as all children deserving to be safe and supported, and therefore, if all children deserve to be safe and supported, we should all think about the needs of the most vulnerable when we make policies that affect them.

The third point is the importance of communicating clearly the evidence about sexual orientation, about gender identity and expression and about measures that work to make our schools and communities safe and inclusive for everyone. Thank you to Senator Osler for starting us off with some of that evidence today.

Fourth, and importantly for all of us here in this room, is the matter of politics. The last thing that vulnerable children and youth need is to be pawns on a political chessboard. In writing about the Saskatchewan situation, The Globe and Mail columnist Andrew Coyne said this:

But then this isn’t about the parents, or the children. It’s about politics. It’s about pandering to obscure fears and broader resentments . . . .

Colleagues, I change my tone now when I say that I also concur with the Canadian Civil Liberties Association when they say:

In Canada, people are compassionate and decent; Canadians care about rights and freedoms, about evidence-based policy, and about the well-being of children.

I was so happy to hear that, today, in the Nova Scotia Legislature, many members from all parties spoke about protecting the rights of 2SLGBTQI+ people in that legislature. That’s wonderful news.

Honourable senators, it’s time for us all to stand with our 2SLGBTQI+ brothers, our sisters, our children, our grandchildren, our colleagues and our neighbours. Let’s come together in unity here in this upper chamber of Canada’s Parliament to pledge right now our commitment to respecting and upholding their rights as dictated by the laws of our land — and because it is the right thing to do.

And let’s ensure that Canada does not get dragged deeper into someone else’s culture wars. Let’s make sure the government develops a robust anti-hate action plan with effective mechanisms to combat any current and future threats to the safety, well-being and rights of 2SLGBTQI+ Canadians.

Honourable senators, I hope you will all agree we need a Canada where everyone can flourish without fear. Thank you.