Hon. Brent Cotter: Honourable senators, I rise to speak to Inquiry No. 5 to draw attention to the budget entitled A Made‑in‑Canada Plan: Strong Middle Class, Affordable Economy, Healthy Future.

Specifically, I want to speak to the importance of the national anti-hate action plan announced in the 2023 budget, and its impact on 2SLGBTQIA+ communities.

I enjoy hearing myself speak — it’s conceivable that some of you do as well, but I think you and I would be better off today if I didn’t, and instead listened to the thoughtful, insightful and moving remarks on this issue being delivered by senators in this place. I’m honoured today more to be listening than to speak.

This is an issue that is both deeply personal and profoundly universal for many of us. As we gather in this chamber, we must recognize the urgency of the matter and the responsibility that we bear — as representatives of the Canadian people — to give voice.

The human rights of all individuals are universal and indivisible. As stated in Article 1 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, “All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.”

Yet, for many in the 2SLGBTQIA+ community, this fundamental truth remains elusive for them. Hate crimes, discrimination and violence against these individuals persist, both within our borders and beyond. In 2022 alone, the Trans Murder Monitoring report indicated that there had been 327 deaths globally — 95% of those murdered being trans women. Most of these victims were marginalized, further underscoring what we already know: Hate manifests most among those of us who are pushed to the edges of our societies.

Canada is not immune to these challenges. A 2020 study in Canada found that trans Canadians were more likely to experience violence and inappropriate behaviours online and at work. In 2023 alone, we have witnessed hate-motivated vandalism of pride flags, hate-fuelled protests and even the exclusion of pride flags from municipal properties and from the tape on hockey sticks.

Sadly, this past year, we’ve also seen a significant and insidious rise in the politicization of discussions about sexual orientation and gender identity of Canadian youth. Some of you have spoken to this already. Several provinces have rolled out or are considering legislation targeting the treatment of gender‑diverse youth in our education systems, and I want to primarily speak about young people in the remaining part of my remarks.

My sense is that this politicization of our youngest, most vulnerable citizens is concerning and, indeed, unacceptable. A study was pointed out to me by Senator Cormier, which helps to illuminate this concern. It was a study of student wellness for New Brunswick. It polled students from grades 6 to 12, or children aged 12 to 18 — those are hard years for many of us, regardless of the extenuating circumstances.

I want to read out a few sobering findings, if I may: The first will be the average response among students, and then the response provided by LGBTQ2+ students. Students were asked if they felt lonely most or all of the time. The average response rate was 28% said yes. For LGBTQ2+ students, 51% felt lonely most or all of the time. These are messages of alienation and vulnerability, I think.

With respect to difficulty sleeping most or all of the time, the average was 65%. For LGBTQ2+ students, it was 80%. In regard to the ability to communicate in the communities, and if people in those communities can be trusted, 55% of students said yes. Of the LGBTQ2+ students, 42% said yes. In regard to if you can ask for help from neighbours, the average was 66%. For LGBTQ2+ students, it was 53%.

In every one of these cases, there was a statistically significant difference in the wrong direction for support for these vulnerable young people. The evidence is clear, and the need for heightened protection of minors has been clear even in the Supreme Court of Canada jurisprudence, which has stated unequivocally that “Recognition of the inherent vulnerability of children has consistent and deep roots in Canadian law.”

Let me offer an aside: You hear this debate between parental rights and children’s rights, and maybe the argument being advanced is that somehow parental rights should trump children’s rights. Well, let me tell you what we do in every province in this country: We have laws that protect children — I have an audience of one back here.

Thank you, Senator Simons.

We have laws, so much so that it is an obligation that if you — as a citizen in this country — discover that a child is in need of protective services, you are obliged to report that to the authorities. If you fail to do so, you commit an offence. So be damned with this line of argument that somehow children’s rights have to be modified.

In this society, to our credit, we place them on a very high pedestal, and we should not stop.