Amy Hamm is a registered nurse in B.C. and a J.K. Rowling fan. But her professional regulator, the B.C. College of Nurses and Midwives, is not a fan, for reasons we’ll get to in a moment.

Last month, the College’s Discipline Committee found that Ms. Hamm had engaged in professional misconduct due to her allegedly discriminatory and derogatory statements about men who identify as women. According to the Committee, Ms. Hamm’s statements “challenge the existence of transgender women, conflate sex and gender, and advocate for the denial of legal protections for transgender women.”

Let’s see if that’s a fair assessment.

Highlights of Amy Hamm’s Case

When Amy Hamm expressed her views on gender identity and transgenderism online, none of her supposedly “discriminatory” or “derogatory” statements were made in the context of providing patient care. It’s not as if Ms. Hamm was going around getting into arguments with patients about this. Indeed, there were no complaints from patients or anyone else about Ms. Hamm’s performance as a nurse.

Did Amy Hamm “challenge the existence of transgender women”?

Such an accusation is rather clichĂ© today. And as empty as ever. Amy Hamm never denied that people experience gender dysphoria or that people identify as transgender. Rather, Hamm’s position is that self-identity cannot override biological realities—meaning that a man cannot become a woman simply by imagining or believing himself to be one.

The Committee found Hamm’s biological realism to be “unfair and untrue to transgender women” because it denied the “possibility” that they could truly feel like women. Essentially, the College took the baffling position that it is wrong to argue something is false if it might possibly be true and if questioning its veracity upsets certain people.

Did Hamm “conflate sex and gender?”

For almost all of Western history, the medical and scientific communities treated sex and gender as interchangeable terms. But the College asserts that Hamm engaged in misconduct by upholding this long-standing view that sex and gender are the same. The College asserts that holding such a view should be considered unprofessional. But Hamm does not actually hold this view.

The only evidence available to the Committee – statements made while Hamm identified as a nurse – shows that Hamm distinguished between sex and gender. In a position statement on her website, she explicitly states that sex is “based on biological reality” while “gender identity and expression are culturally-based.”

The College’s problem was not that Hamm failed to distinguish sex and gender—but that she didn’t do so in a way that aligned with the College’s preferred ideology. By stretching its interpretation of evidence, the Committee framed Ms. Hamm’s views as derogatory and discriminatory without demonstrating how they met that threshold.

Did Hamm oppose “legal protections for transgender people”?

One of the College’s most egregious accusations against Hamm was that she desired to strip transgender people of their legal protections. On the contrary, Hamm never argued against anti-discrimination protections. Her position was that such protections should be based on biological sex rather than gender identity. Otherwise, she argued, it “renders sex meaningless.”

Hamm argued that transgender people can and should be protected under human rights legislation. Despite this, the College concluded—without evidence—that Hamm’s view “erases transgender women” and was therefore discriminatory and unprofessional.

The Committee goes on to suggest that Hamm sought to “elicit fear, contempt and hostility towards the transgender community, particularly transgender women” through her comments. The Committee tried to attribute bad motives to her even thogh she made clear her concern was protecting women’s rights.

Incredibly, the Committee even cited a billboard Hamm helped put up that said “I heart J.K. Rowling” as evidence of Hamm’s hatred for transgender people. Rowling is (in)famous for standing up for women and sex-based legal protections rooted in biological reality.

Transgender Ideology Threatens Healthcare Workers

Throughout its decision, the Committee made broad ideological claims about gender. It refused to acknowledge the basic biological reality that “there are only two sexes,” dismissing this statement as an “oversimplification.” That a panel of medical professionals would reject such a fundamental biological fact raises serious concerns.

Unfortunately, this rejection of biological reality is a symptom of a broader problem. As explained by scholars like Carl Trueman, we live in a highly individualistic culture that encourages us not to love, but to reject our God-given bodies. In some sense, our culture suggests we can transcend our bodies and the natural limits our bodies impose in the pursuit of whatever we think will make us feel fulfilled.

Many Canadians are waking up to the social and political ramifications of this phenomenon. Last year, an Ipsos poll confirmed a decline of support for LGBTQ causes, due to increasing frustration with transgender ideology. Hamm’s views, far from being fringe, reflect a mainstream position. Yet, many governments and regulatory bodies continue to purge those who accept and respect objective reality.

Why Amy Hamm’s Case Matters

Something needs to change. Medical professionals in Canada are still under increasing pressure to conform to tenets of a gnostic civil religion.

A few years ago, the Ontario Court of Appeal ruled that doctors must provide effective referrals for procedures such as Medical Assistance in Dying (MAID) and abortion, even if doing so violates their conscience. Recently, in Manitoba, medical student Rafael Zaki sought judicial review after he was expelled for sharing a pro-life essay online.

Amy Hamm’s case is another example of the effort to purge ideological dissent from the medical profession and to suppress the truth about the damage caused by this pervasive ideology. Amy Hamm will likely not be the last victim. But let us hope and pray that her courage in this case will inspire others.

In 2019, a Coptic Christian named Rafael Zaki was expelled from medical school at the University of Manitoba after making provocative anti-abortion statements online. Ever since then, Zaki has been in a protracted legal battle with the University.

Zaki’s case against the University was heard in court last week for a second time. The first time around, the court reversed Zaki’s expulsion for procedural fairness reasons. Then the University expelled him again and he went back to court. ARPA followed last week’s hearing.

Who is Rafael Zaki?

Rafael Zaki is the child of immigrant parents, parents who suffered religious persecution in their home country, Egypt. They immigrated to Canada so their children would have an opportunity for a better life.

Zaki and his family are Coptic Orthodox, a faith that recognizes the sanctity of life.

Zaki did well academically in high school and university. In August of 2018, Zaki was admitted to the Max Rady College of Medicine at the University of Manitoba.

But Zaki was expelled for unprofessional conduct after sharing a provocative 27-page pro-life essay that he wrote on Facebook. His essay contained controversial language and arguments, comparing abortion with other human rights violations such as genocide and slavery.

The University supposedly received multiple complaints from students and faculty, saying Zaki’s posts were disturbing and damaging to the learning environment. The University agreed, characterizing Zaki’s posts as misogynistic, violent, and offensive. Ultimately, the University concluded that Zaki’s conduct violated their professionalism standards.

Initially, Zaki was asked to apologize and undergo a remediation process, but Zaki’s apologies were deemed insufficient. Eventually, the school’s Progress Committee voted to expel him in August 2019 for failing to meet professionalism standards.

Zaki’s First Appeal and Court Hearing

Zaki appealed the Progress Committee decision to the Local Discipline Committee and then up to the University Discipline Committee in July 2020. He lost in both instances. Zaki then applied to court for judicial review of the University Discipline Committee’s decision.

In August 2021, the Manitoba Court of King’s Bench sided with Zaki and quashed the University Discipline Committee decision. The Court found that there was a reasonable apprehension of bias in the disciplinary process. A faculty member had played multiple roles in the investigation and discipline process. The Court also found that the discipline committee failed to consider Zaki’s Charter rights, specifically freedom of expression and religion.

The Court sent the case back to the University to reconsider with an unbiased panel on the discipline committee. The new panel conducted a fresh review of the evidence and expelled Zaki again, who had been re-enrolled in classes for some time already by that point. 

The committee acknowledged that Zaki’s Charter rights were engaged but ruled that his expulsion was reasonable anyway. The panel reasoned that medical students are required to meet professionalism standards, and Zaki’s conduct—specifically his social media posts and inability to complete “remediation” to their satisfaction demonstrated Zaki’s lack of understanding of these responsibilities.

The Status of Zaki’s Case

Zaki appealed the Committee’s decision to the Manitoba Court of King’s Bench once again. The hearing took place last week, on March 26 and 27.

In court, Zaki’s lawyer, Lia Milousis, argued that the Committee was biased once again. She emphasized that the University repeatedly shifted their position on what Zaki needed to do to avoid expulsion. For example, Zaki had written multiple apologies because the University implied that doing so would mitigate the consequences. But the University rejected his apologies since they did not recant his core pro-life beliefs, which is what the University staff actually wanted.

Zaki’s lawyer also argued that the University selectively quoted from his essay to make him sound more controversial. Zaki’s factum (written submissions to court) also noted that the Chair of the new discipline panel had a close professional relationship with the Dean. But the Dean was involved in the initial expulsion decision and testified at the second discipline hearing, creating another conflict of interest.

Zaki also argued that the University violated his Charter rights to freedom of expression and religion in a disproportionate way by, in effect, expelling him for not recanting his beliefs.

Zaki hopes the Court will overturn his expulsion soon. If he succeeds, the Court is likely to remit the matter back to the Committee for reconsideration yet again, but it is also open to the Court to find that the University could not reasonably expel him on these facts.

Why Zaki’s Case Matters

Zaki’s case underscores the immense power universities hold over students’ academic and professional futures. It shows how professionalism standards can be abused for ideological and political purposes.

Zaki’s case also raises important questions about protecting freedom of expression and religion in public universities and in regulated professions.

ARPA delivered arguments to Ontario’s highest court last week about respecting the freedom to share religious and moral beliefs on sensitive subjects. Here’s a quick history of how we got there and why it matters.

It all starts with a man named Bill Whatcott. Whatcott says that as a young man he lived on the streets and, on occasion, performed sexual favours for other men for drugs. But Whatcott eventually found his way off the streets, got married, converted to Christianity, and became a nurse. As a nurse working in downtown Toronto, Whatcott says that he saw many men die from AIDS.

Because of his experience and his faith, Whatcott believes it is his calling to preach against homosexuality and transgenderism. But it is Whatcott’s method of doing so that has made him notorious.

Whatcott at the Supreme Court of Canada

In 2013, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that Whatcott had engaged in hate speech (according to Saskatchewan human rights law) by handing out flyers which warned against including homosexuality as a topic in public education. The flyer said, among other things, that “homosexuals want to share their filth and propaganda with Saskatchewan’s children” and “our children will pay the price in disease, death, abuse.”

The Supreme Court of Canada concluded, in that (2013) case, “The repeated references to ‘filth,’ ‘dirty,’ ‘degenerated’ and ‘sex addicts’ or ‘addictive behaviour’ emphasize the notion that those of same-sex orientation are unclean and possessed with uncontrollable sexual appetites or behaviour.  The message which a reasonable person would take from the flyers is that homosexuals, by virtue of their sexual orientation, are inferior, untrustworthy and seek to proselytize and convert our children.”

Whatcott was ordered to pay a substantial sum to the complainants in that case.  But when it came to passing out more flyers in the future, Whatcott was undeterred. In 2019, ARPA reported on another human rights tribunal decision about a different Whatcott flyer which he had distributed in Vancouver.

From human rights complaints to criminal indictment

The latest Whatcott court case is a more serious matter because it involves not a human rights complaint but an indictment under the Criminal Code of Canada. For this particular crime, the local Crown prosecutor has to ask permission from the Attorney General of Ontario to prosecute a charge, a petition that was granted. If convicted, Whatcott would likely receive a prison sentence.

Though the appeal hearing was held just last week, the story of his criminal case begins 7 years ago. In 2016, Whatcott infiltrated the Toronto Pride Parade under the made-up name “Robert Clinton.” leader of the fake “Gay Zombie Cannabis Consumers Association.” The Pride Parade Committee gave him the green light. Whatcott and company distributed what they called “safe sex packets” at the parade, which contained flyers folded within small wrappers.

On one side, the flyer warned about the health risks of engaging in homosexual relations. It had several graphic photos of infected body parts. It also had a photo of an emaciated corpse on an autopsy table. On the other side, the flyer described sex scandals involving politicians who supported Pride. At the bottom of the flyer, there was a call to repentance and a number to call if you wanted to stop having gay sex and become a Christian. The flyer ended by quoting 1 Peter 2:21-25: “For to this you have been called, because Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example, so that you might follow in his steps. He committed no sin, neither was deceit found in his mouth. When he was reviled, he did not revile in return; when he suffered, he did not threaten, but continued entrusting himself to him who judges justly. He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness. By his wounds you have been healed. For you were straying like sheep, but have now returned to the Shepherd and Overseer of your souls.”

People complained to the police, who arrested Mr. Whatcott and charged him with “willful promotion of hatred,” one of the Criminal Code’s “hate propaganda” offences.

Whatcott was acquitted at trial, but the Crown appealed

Whatcott was acquitted at trial. The judge decided that Whatcott’s flyer was a “borderline case.” After hearing all the evidence, the judge doubted whether the flyers passed the legal test for hate propaganda. Unhappy with the verdict, the Crown prosecutors appealed.

The Crown subbed in new lawyers to argue the appeal and they subbed in some new arguments as well. At the lower court (the first trial) the Crown prosecutors had argued that Whatcott promoted hatred against gay men by presenting them as dangerous spreaders of disease.

On appeal, however, the Crown also argued that Whatcott, by calling for an end to gay sex, was calling for the “eradication” of gay men. The Crown argued that the flyers themselves were an extreme manifestation of hatred. Finally, they also argued that it was the court’s job to assess the degree to which Whatcott’s personal beliefs were hateful.

ARPA’s legal arguments

This is where ARPA’s arguments came in (you can read our written arguments here). ARPA made three main points to the panel of judges.

First, ARPA explained that the law distinguishes between condemning conduct that is core to a group’s identity (in this case, same-sex sexual relations) and promoting hatred against that group. Leading case law maintains that people are free to criticize or condemn the conduct or beliefs of a group, provided they do not also make “hate-inspiring representations” of that group. What is a hate-inspiring representation? The Supreme Court has used an example the claim that all gay men are pedophiles, a defamatory generalization of gay men that (if believed) might incite hatred in others towards them. 

Second, ARPA clarified that the Criminal Code does not target the beliefs or ideas that someone expresses, per se, but only the substantially certain effects of their communication. The Supreme Court has said that judges should not be deciding what are acceptable or unacceptable beliefs for people to hold or to share. The issue is, rather, whether the accused intended to incite hatred in other people towards an identifiable group (defined by race, religion, sexuality, gender, or disability). Maintaining this distinction in law is important if we are to avoid having judges label beliefs as “hateful” or “hatred.”

Hatred in this legal context means an “intense and extreme emotion” that “belies reason” and that may lead to actual mistreatment or violence. Whether a statement or publication will promote hatred depends not only on the wording and images used but also on all of the circumstances of the speech, including the intended audience. A publication or message (including a Bible verse, a catechism excerpt, or even a Whatcott flyer) cannot “constitute hatred” as the Crown contended because a publication is not an emotion. The “hatred” of concern to the law is a dangerously intense emotion directed towards a group.

And third, ARPA argued that individuals, unlike governments, are generally free to urge other people to change beliefs and conduct that are core to their identity, even if governments are not. (The Crown had cited case law which says that sexual orientation is something the government may not require anyone to change.)

What’s next?

If the Crown’s arguments are accepted, it could have major implications for Christian individuals and institutions who hold an orthodox view on human sexuality and sexual morality. Of course, most Christians don’t engage in the type of expression Whatcott does. But if the judges accept the Crown’s argument in principle, it may not matter how winsome, kind, or genuine you are in your attempts to communicate Christian teaching on such topics. Your speech might still be deemed “hateful.”

We don’t know how the Court will rule. We must wait for their decision, which will likely not be released for a few months to a year. In the meantime, we ask that you pray for the judges, that they would be careful, precise, and wise in their deliberations.

ARPA Canada has filed its arguments to the Ontario Court of Appeal

Imagine for a moment a silly situation. Imagine that legislation is alive. Now imagine you sit down with the proposed Online Streaming Act, also known as Bill C-11, for a private evening chat. Just you, C-11, and a nice crisp lager. C-11 sits back and, reflecting on its life, the bill sighs, looks you in the eye, and quotes the famous author, Hermann Hesse: “Whither will my path yet lead me? This path is stupid, it goes in spirals, perhaps in circles, but whichever way it goes, I will follow it.”

I am sure we can all sympathize with our animated paper friend. For those of us following C-11’s meander through the House of Commons and the Senate, it has been quite the ride. The Liberal administration has introduced the bill in two different parliaments. It has been in and out of committees, and in and out of the Senate. Given C-11’s controversial nature, it has made the headlines quite a bit.

Because of all of this, it can be tricky to understand exactly what C-11 says now. So, we thought we would give you a rundown of exactly that – what the bill says.

In our view, the Senate made four amendments of consequence that the House of Commons considered.

First the good news:

While it is true that a cap-and-trade system does not meet the definition of a tax, the study did not label the statement misinformation for that reason (because calling a cap-and-trade system a “job-killing carbon tax” is an obvious bit of political hyperbole). No, it labelled it misinformation because the Council disagreed with the economic conclusion drawn by that statement – i.e., that a cap-and-trade system would reduce jobs. Unfortunately, all too often, laws about misinformation or disinformation (the terms often merge) focus on viewpoint censorship and not on creating actual transparency.

Now the bad news:

To sum it all up, the House of Commons has accepted minor improvements but rejected any amendments that would constitute major improvements. Despite Senate efforts, C-11 is still a bad bill. Giving a government body the power to regulate what people say online is just a bad idea. As Professor Michael Geist points out, if C-11 passes, Canada will be the only democratic country in the world to regulate user content.

Will Bill C-11 become law now?

The House of Commons has sent the bill back to the Senate after addressing the amendments mentioned above, but that does not mean the Senate will accept the changes. The Senate does not have to let C-11 move on to get Royal Assent and become the law of the land. The Senate has considerable constitutional power. The Senate may reject a bill for as long as it likes, and no bill can become law unless it has passed the Senate. It is conceivable that the Senate could just send Bill C-11 back to the House of Commons one more time for further amendments.

Typically, however, the Senate does not reject bills from the House of Commons over and over. There is an unwritten understanding that the unelected Senate should not ultimately stand in the way of the elected House of Commons. The Senate may lean toward passing C-11 because this is the third time that C-11, or its predecessor C-10, has reached the Senate. Of course, this is conjecture. Initial debate in the Senate shows that certain Senators are still quite unhappy about C-11 having the potential to give the CRTC the power of policing people’s online opinions.

So, while we all wait through yet another turn on C-11’s spiralling path, we ask you to keep following up on this issue by writing an Easy Mail to your Senators, urging them to re-introduce their amendments or vote against C-11 altogether.

It has been quite some time since we’ve talked about Bill C-11, the controversial bill that could affect online privacy and freedom of expression.

Despite the controversy and concerns surrounding Bill C-11, the government has continued to push for its passage. After passing from the House, Senators added an amendment to ensure that Bill C-11 will not regulate content that everyday Canadians post to social media. The Senate also added an amendment that would require age verification before a user could access pornographic content online. Both of these amendments would have significantly improved this bill but were rejected by the House of Commons.

The bill is now being considered by the Senate for the second time.

While the overall legislation is complex, our ask right now is simple: encourage your provincial Senators to either re-insert these Senate amendments or vote against this legislation entirely.

Go to easymail.staging.arpacanada.ca to send that EasyMail.

Bill C-11, also called ‘The Online Streaming Act,’ amends Canada’s Broadcasting Act. This broadcasting act from 1991 provides the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) with its mandate, including the power to regulate the Canadian broadcasting system (cable, tv, radio, etc.). It is also intended to “support Canada’s creators, artists, and creative industries, and ensures that Canadian music and stories are available and accessible.” The details of the Broadcasting Act are challenging, and while this is not ARPA’s area of expertise, there are some concerns about the scope of Bill C-11 that need to be addressed.

Colin gives an update on the status of C-11.

Any time there is an election, there is an opportunity to speak up for issues that matter.

While two major federal political parties have had stable leadership for several years now (Justin Trudeau became the leader of the Liberals in 2013 and Jagmeet Singh became the leader of the NDP in 2017), the federal Conservative Party is starting its third leadership race in the past five years. To date, Pierre Poilievre, Leslyn Lewis, Jean Charest, Roman Baber, Scott Aitchison, Patrick Brown, Marc Dalton, and Leona Alleslev have all been approved as candidates, although several other people have declared their intention to run.

Although ARPA Canada does not endorse any political parties or specific candidates, we strongly encourage Christians to become involved in leadership races for the opportunity they provide to raise critical issues for discussion. Given the current political climate, we’re focusing on three issues at the federal level right now: conversion therapy bans, euthanasia, and hate speech.

Why Conversion Therapy Bans?

Late last year, the Parliament of Canada passed Bill C-4, which criminalized conversion therapy. This ban on conversion therapy featured an overly broad definition that may include Christian counselling and conversations about a biblical understanding of gender and sexuality. Although many Members of Parliament opposed previous iterations of this bill, Bill C-4 passed unanimously in December. This unanimous passage was unexpectedly proposed by the Conservative official opposition. We are hoping that this leadership race will provide some clarity around the Conservative party’s stance on conversion therapy as well as the stance of individual candidates on this issue.

Why Euthanasia?

The Parliament of Canada also passed Bill C-7 last year, a bill that expanded access to euthanasia. The immediate expansion significantly reduced safeguards and the bill also determined that people with a mental illness would be eligible for euthanasia as of March 2023, unless Parliament adjusts the law before then. Additionally, the Interparliamentary Committee on MAiD has been reconvened yet again to examine Canada’s euthanasia law. The new leader of the Conservative party will likely influence the position of the Conservative members on that committee. The expansion of medically assisted death is a huge concern for Christians and for many groups advocating on behalf of people with disabilities or mental illnesses. We hope that all the Conservative leadership candidates give this issue the attention that it deserves and specifically take a stand against the expansion of euthanasia to those with mental illness.

Why Free Speech/Hate Speech?

Finally, the current government has introduced Bill C-11, a bill that increases the government’s ability to curtail freedom of expression on the internet, and has promised to re-introduce a provision forbidding hate speech in the human rights code. While the Bible does not support unfettered free speech (e.g. commands against blasphemy, false witness, slander, or gossip), these restrictions of free speech may very well forbid the expression of the truth, or at least limit the acceptable bounds of debate on key moral, political, and policy issues.

How Can We Be Involved?

As all the Conservative leadership candidates tour the country and host in-person or virtual events, we encourage you all to raise these three issues. Quickly brief yourself on the issues using our One-Pagers below, attend the candidates’ meetings, and respectfully ask the candidates about their position on these issues. The more that these candidates realize that these three issues are of great concern to the people they seek to represent, the more they will be required to grapple with and respond to these issues.

ARPA-ConvTher-Infographic-4Download
ARPA-Euthanasia-One-PagerDownload
ARPA-BillC36-Infographic-4Download

What About Other Issues?

Of course, there are many more issues of importance that you might want to know a candidate’s stance on! Put some thought into what key issues the Bible speaks to and what questions you might want to be answered by the candidates.

What’s the Timeline?

The leadership candidates will be crisscrossing the country over the next several months, endeavouring to sell memberships to citizens and asking for their vote. The deadline for potential candidates to enter the leadership race was April 19th and the verified list of candidates will be released on April 29th.  Those who wish to vote in this Conservative leadership race must become members of the party by June 3rd. Voting will occur late in the summer, with the winner announced on September 10th.

What About the Other Parties?

As mentioned above, only the Conservative party is in the midst of a leadership race. However, these issues are not just ones that the Conservative party needs to wrestle with. All political parties must as well. We encourage supporters of other parties to pose these questions to the leaders of their own political parties, whether that leader is Justin Trudeau, Jagmeet Singh, Yves-François Blanchet, or Maxime Bernier. The Green Party is also without a permanent leader at this stage. An upcoming Green party leadership race is also an opportunity for Christians – whether members of that party or not – to raise concerns about conversion therapy, euthanasia, and hate speech/free speech within that party as well.

After each federal election, the Prime Minister’s office releases Mandate Letters for each of the cabinet ministers. These letters explain the Prime Minister’s expectations for each member of his cabinet and lay out challenges and commitments that come with their role. At the same time, these letters are made publicly available so that Canadians can understand some of the priorities that the federal government will focus on over the next few years.

The ministers’ mandate letters were released on December 16, 2021. The basic template of each letter focuses on recovery from COVID-19, climate change, the rights of Indigenous Peoples, systemic inequity of minority groups within Canada, and general expectations for ministers. Many of the objectives and commitments in the letters are similar to what the government had promised prior to the election, so there are no major surprises. However, specific commitments are worth noting as we keep an eye on how they develop over the coming years.  

Charitable Status

In line with the Liberals’ election promise regarding charitable status for certain organizations, the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance has been tasked with the following: “Introduce amendments to the Income Tax Act to make anti-abortion organizations that provide dishonest counselling to pregnant women about their rights and options ineligible for charitable status.” It’s unclear how exactly the government would remove charitable status from pro-life organizations or how far that would extend. However, the possibility is very concerning, and ultimately the government needs to recognize the value and importance of organizations like pregnancy care centres.

Hate Speech

Before the summer break in 2021, the government had introduced both Bill C-10 and Bill C-36, which focused on hate speech and regulating online content. Although those bills died when the election was called, the Liberals are once again focused on regulating and limiting freedom of expression both online and in public. The Minister of Housing and Diversity and Inclusion was given the following task: “As part of a renewed Anti-Racism Strategy, lead work across government to develop a National Action Plan on Combatting Hate, including actions on combatting hate crimes in Canada, training and tools for public safety agencies, and investments to support digital literacy, to prevent radicalization to violence and to protect vulnerable communities.”

In addition, the Minister of Justice will “continue efforts with the Minister of Canadian Heritage to develop and introduce legislation as soon as possible to combat serious forms of harmful online content to protect Canadians and hold social media platforms and other online services accountable for the content they host, including by strengthening the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Criminal Code to more effectively combat online hate and reintroduce measures to strengthen hate speech provisions, including the re-enactment of the former Section 13 provision.” This seems to be a replication of what was previously Bill C-36. However, there is a possibility that this legislation will include positive components around combatting online pornography as well as more negative limits on freedom of expression. ARPA Canada’s analysis of last year’s Bill C-36 can be found here.

The Minister of Canadian Heritage is expected to “reintroduce legislation to reform the Broadcasting Act to ensure foreign web giants contribute to the creation and promotion of Canadian stories and music.” The previous version of this legislation, Bill C-10, also included the possibility of regulating social certain private social media content that was determined to be a ‘broadcast.’ Further information around Bill C-10 can be found here.

We will be keeping watch to see what exactly is included in this type of legislation if and when it is introduced.

Pre-born Children

The government often speaks of ‘sexual and reproductive health’ to refer to abortion access. The recent mandates encompass that, and also specifically include issues such as in vitro fertilization and surrogacy. The Minister of Health is mandated to: “work to ensure that all Canadians have access to the sexual and reproductive health services they need, no matter where they live, by reinforcing compliance under the Canada Health Act, developing a sexual and reproductive health rights information portal, supporting the establishment of mechanisms to help families cover the costs of in vitro fertilization, and supporting youth-led grassroots organizations that respond to the unique sexual and reproductive health needs of young people.” 

The Minister of Finance and the Minister for Women and Gender Equality and Youth are tasked with “expand[ing] the Medical Expense Tax Credit to include costs reimbursed to surrogate mothers for IVF expenses.”

One issue here is the clear plan to continue pressuring the province of New Brunswick to fund abortions in private clinics, something they are the only province not to do. More on that topic can be found here.

The focus on in vitro fertilization and surrogacy raises questions and concerns about how far these procedures might become commercialized in Canada. For further information on these issues, you can read ARPA Canada’s policy reports on both in vitro fertilization and surrogacy.

Gender and Sexuality

Regarding issues of gender and sexuality, the mandate letters only speak in broad terms, especially since Bill C-4, which banned so-called ‘conversion therapy’ was passed before the mandate letters were released. There is a lot of language around efforts to promote equality and remove discrimination for minority groups both in Canada and around the world.

The Minister of Justice is told to: “Build on the passage of Bill C-4, which criminalized conversion therapy, [and] continue to ensure that Canadian justice policy protects the dignity and equality of LGBTQ2 Canadians.”

The Minister for Women and Gender Equality and Youth is directed to “launch the Federal LGBTQ2 Action Plan and provide capacity funding to Canadian LGBTQ2 service organizations” and “continue the work of the LGBTQ2 Secretariat in promoting LGBTQ2 equality at home and abroad, protecting LGBTQ2 rights and addressing discrimination against LGBTQ2 communities, building on the passage of Bill C-4, which criminalized conversion therapy.”

It is hard to say what ‘building on the passage of Bill C-4’ looks like exactly because specifics are not provided. However, Bill C-4 is concerning on multiple levels, and building on it will likely follow in a similar vein.  Further information on Bill C-4 can be found here.

Child Care

Child care continues to be an issue the federal government is pushing. The Minister of Families, Children and Social Development is tasked with concluding negotiations with provinces that have not yet signed an agreement with the federal government (Ontario and New Brunswick), and ensuring that $10-a-day child care is available throughout Canada. They also plan to “introduc[e] federal child care legislation to strengthen and protect a high-quality Canada-wide child care system.”  You can read more about a Christian perspective on universal child care here.

Drug Use

The Minister of Mental Health and Addictions is tasked with advancing “a comprehensive strategy to address problematic substance use in Canada, supporting efforts to improve public education to reduce stigma, and supporting provinces and territories and working with Indigenous communities to provide access to a full range of evidence-based treatment and harm reduction, as well as to create standards for substance use treatment programs.”

This is not a new issue but there seems to be a new emphasis on it. Bill C-5, a reiteration of Bill C-22 from the previous Parliament, seeks to move increasingly towards treating substance abuse as a health issue instead of a criminal issue.

Conclusion

The issues presented here are priorities of the federal government, and they also raise various questions and concerns about what changes to legislation and regulations on these topics will look like. Stay tuned for further resources and action items as we see how these issues develop over the next few years.