Conservative MP Andrew Lawton blasted the government’s separate Creative Export Canada program, pointing out that Ottawa is wasting hundreds of thousands of dollars subsidizing niche indie video games while the entire foundational copyright ecosystem is left entirely unprotected.
A heavily taxpayer-subsidized federal museum sparks fierce political backlash by launching an active public campaign targeting traditional parental rights.
Canada’s federal cultural institutions are facing an intense political firestorm following revelations that a taxpayer-funded national museum has launched an aggressive public campaign targeting the parental rights movement. Testifying before the House of Commons Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage earlier this month, the Honourable Marc Miller, Minister of Canadian Identity and Culture, was forced to defend the institutional integrity of his portfolio organizations amid accusations of government-subsidized ideological warfare.
Conservative Member of Parliament Andrew Lawton launched a blistering line of questioning regarding the Canadian Museum for Human Rights, which operates on an annual federal allocation of $28.7 million. Lawton presented official statements published by the Winnipeg-based museum, noting: “On March 31, they said, ‘Over the last few years, the “parental rights” movement has been growing in Canada, which aims to deny 2SLGBTQI+ youth their fundamental rights.'” He said the state-funded institution went as far as publishing material targeting four specific “myths” of parental rights, including the premise that parental rights are about protecting children, that there are only two genders, and that parents should have the ability to raise their children as they see fit.
“The Museum for Human Rights says that the parental rights myth of protecting children is used as a justification for hate speech,” Lawton stated, demanding to know if the minister agreed with the state-backed condemnation of Canadian parents. Lawton slammed the department’s hands-off financial approach, noting: “You just give them the money, and if they want to declare a campaign against parental rights, that’s totally fine.”
Minister Miller repeatedly attempted to distance the executive branch from the controversy, invoking the structural autonomy granted to federal museum boards. “The first one we need to disabuse ourselves of is what my role is in telling a museum, which is indeed a portfolio organization, what to do or what not to do,” Miller defects, adding: “There is a board that has the capacity to define policy, specifically, on dealing with human rights.”
While Miller defended the necessity of protecting vulnerable, questioning members of the LGBT youth community, he refused to validate or condemn the specific terminology used by the museum.
Instead, the minister deflected accountability, telling the opposition member: “What you need to do if you’re very interested in the Canadian Museum for Human Rights—it’s in Winnipeg, a beautiful city—is visit it and perhaps organize a meeting with the CEO and ask her those questions yourself.”
About the Author
