Commentary
In a free society, should government-owned facilities be available only to people who hold the “right” opinions? The Superior Court of Quebec has given a clear “non.” Justice Alain Trudel has ordered Quebec Tourism Minister Caroline Proulx to pay $60,637 in general and punitive damages to Harvest Ministries International after she ordered the cancellation of its contract to use the Centre des congrès de Québec for a Christian conference.
This case is about whether government officials can use their control over public property to censor (and effectively punish) citizens who hold what are deemed controversial opinions.
Harvest Ministries rented the Quebec City convention centre in February 2023 for its “Faith, Freedom, Fire” prayer and worship conference. The event was scheduled for June 22 to July 2 and was expected to attract more than 1,200 people per day. The contract was signed. People from across Canada made travel plans and bought airline tickets.
On May 31, the CBC asked Proulx about the convention centre being rented by what it described as an “an evangelical, anti-abortion group that denounces laws that undermine the word of God, the family, and sex.” Minister Proulx looked at the Harvest Ministries website and did not like what she found. Among other things, the website stated that the mother’s womb is “the most dangerous place for a child in Canada,” and called for prayer for the sanctity of life and an end to abortion.
Proulx then ordered the Centre des congrès to cancel the rental agreement, less than three weeks before the conference was scheduled to begin. She explained that the conference was “contrary to Quebec’s fundamental values,” claiming the government firmly believed in freedom of expression, but “just as firmly in freedom of choice.” She declared that nothing prevented Harvest Ministries from holding its event somewhere else, in a private venue, as though denying the use of public facilities is trivial or irrelevant.
The Quebec court found that Ms. Proulx had abused her authority by arbitrarily cancelling the contract because of an ideological disagreement. The court also found that the Quebec government had unjustifiably violated Harvest Ministries’ freedom of expression as protected by the Charter.
This ruling strongly aligns with the principle of state neutrality—that government should neither favour nor oppose a particular religion or belief system—as laid down clearly by the Supreme Court of Canada in Mouvement laique quebecois v. Saguenay: “The pursuit of the ideal of a free and democratic society requires the state to encourage everyone to participate freely in public life regardless of their beliefs. … The state’s duty to protect every person’s freedom of conscience and religion means that it may not use its powers in such a way as to promote the participation of certain believers or non-believers in public life to the detriment of others.”
The minister’s appeal to Quebec’s “fundamental values” is concerning. Generally, a society’s fundamental values are reflected in its laws. However, a healthy democracy always allows debate about the nature and kind of laws that should be in place. A free society does not silence dissent about what its fundamental values should be. Once a government is permitted to exclude a group because its views are inconsistent with “fundamental values,” the obvious question is: Whose values? The majority’s values? The values adhered to by the people who won the most recent election?
The Quebec court ruling against Minister Proulx is a hopeful sign of resistance to cancel culture in Canada. In 2025, cities across the country cancelled arrangements for evangelical Christian worship services featuring American musician Sean Feucht. Feucht is an outspoken conservative Christian and supporter of Donald Trump. His views on abortion, homosexuality, and other issues are applauded by some and denounced by others. Vocal opposition by some local citizens to is not a legitimate reason for government to cancel a peaceful event in a public place that should be accessible to all.
The organizer of Feucht’s Canadian tour is now suing the City of Moncton for having cancelled a public Christian worship event only two days before it was scheduled to take place in July 2025.
The city had approved the application in April. Organizers subsequently worked with municipal staff on site planning, insurance, washroom facilities, water access, and scheduling. After all that preparation, Moncton cancelled the event because some people said they would protest against it. This is how a “heckler’s veto” works: a noisy individual or group silences whatever opinions it disagrees with. In a free country that respects free speech for everyone, nobody should have an effective veto over the speech of others. Instead of protecting freedom of expression as is required by the Charter, governments like the City of Moncton respond by silencing the speaker.
It was Evelyn Beatrice Hall (not Voltaire, as popularly misremembered) who said, “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” Some decades ago, all Canadians learned while growing up that soldiers had given up their lives to defend the free society, including free speech, in two world wars. Today, Canadians of all ages need to learn (or be reminded) of why we fought against fascists and national socialists, and later against communists. It was to defend the free and democratic society which the Charter holds out as an ideal. Freedom means very little if government can decide which opinions are allowed to be heard.
The Quebec court ruling against the government and for Harvest Ministries reminds us that public spaces should remain public. They should not become ideological property controlled by whichever political party happens to be in power, whichever bureaucrat happens to administer the facility, or whichever activists generate the greatest public pressure. Freedom means very little if government can decide which opinions are allowed to be heard—or not—in public spaces.
The alternative to freedom is what is practised by repressive regimes, past and present, be they communist, fascist, national socialist, theocratic, or otherwise. Authoritarians who control public spaces can use that power to marginalize their opponents. They can decide which religious gatherings are acceptable, which political movements are legitimate, and which speakers are too controversial to be heard.
Minister Proulx was entitled to disagree with Harvest Ministries. She was not entitled to use government power to silence it. The Quebec court’s $60,637 judgment against Proulx is therefore a welcome rebuke to the attitude of “freedom of speech for me, but not for thee.”
John Carpay, B.A., LL.B. is President of the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms, which provided funding for the court action of Harvest Ministries against the Quebec government.
Views expressed in this article are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times.
