The Chair:
Thank you very much.
I now go to Mr. Bruce Pardy, professor of law, Queens University, who's here as an individual.
Professor Pardy, you have five minutes.
Mr. Bruce Pardy (Professor of Law, Queen's University, As an Individual):
Bruce Pardy
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Your committee
is studying how the government should protect free speech.
This seems to me to be quite a strange question for you to be studying, because the answer seems obvious and because, for years, the federal government has been doing the opposite. Free speech is a right we hold against government. Free speech means the right to be free from government limits on speech.
If governments did nothing, we would have free speech. Governments protect free speech by getting out of the way.
Therefore, if you want to protect free speech, stop limiting speech. Defeat Bill
C-63, the online harms act. Repeal Bill
C-18, the Online News Act. Repeal Bill
C-11, the Online Streaming Act. Repeal the gender amendments to the Canadian Human Rights Act from the old Bill
C-16, and so on. If you want to protect free speech, stop limiting speech. As Winston Churchill put it, there is nothing government can give to you that it hasn't taken from you in the first place.
The Chair:
May I point out that this study is not on freedom of speech? The study is on freedom of expression. I just want to remind you of that, Professor Pardy.
Mr. Bruce Pardy:
Thank you, Madam Chair. Free speech and freedom of expression
are essentially the same thing in the law.
I am using free speech to mean freedom of expression.
We have freedom of expression because we are free people. Speech is free not only if it is beneficial, in the public good, serves democracy or helps discover truth in a marketplace of ideas. You also have a right to express your thoughts, whatever they are, for the sole reason that your thoughts are yours. If you are free, you are allowed to hate other people, and you are allowed to say you do. If you are free, you are allowed to vilify, detest, discredit, disrespect, discriminate, speak falsehoods and spread lies.
Now, of course, free speech is not absolute. What are the limits that we can impose upon speech and still call it free? Well, other people are free, too. That means you can't coerce them. You can't threaten them with imminent violence or counsel a crime. You can't defame. You can't harass. You can't defraud. You can't release private information you don't own. These limits make sense, because they protect the liberty of other people—the same liberty that provides you with the right to free speech in the first place. However, that's about as far as it goes, if you want to claim to have free speech.
Therefore, by all means, Madam Chair, protect free speech. Do it by getting the government out of the business of supervising speech.
Thank you.
The Chair:
Thank you very much, Professor.
Mr. Damien Kurek (Battle River—Crowfoot, CPC):
Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
Mr. Pardy, there was a bit of an exchange during your opening statement that talked about whether there's a difference between freedom of expression and freedom of speech. I know that the charter does talk about “expression”, but could you outline what that means for speech? I'm wondering if you could unpack a little bit what freedom of speech is in Canada and the reflections of what that means in the context of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Mr. Bruce Pardy:
Just on the terms, yes, the charter uses the term “freedom of...expression”, and that is the proper legal term, but the term “free speech” is basically a shorthand for that. “Expression” includes more than speech—I mean, the clothes you wear on your back could be a form of expression—but the two terms are essentially used synonymously when you're talking in this kind of context.
That right in the charter has been interpreted by the Supreme Court in, I would say, a utilitarian way, which is unfortunate. What I mean by that, as I alluded to in my statement, is that the Supreme Court has tended to say that free speech is free when it is useful to society. That, of course, means that it's not really free speech at all, because the right to free speech, like all charter rights, essentially, is supposed to act as a space for individuals to resist the interests of the group in the form of the government. If it is allowed that we infringe on these rights because the group wants to, then they're not really functioning as rights at all. They're functioning as something else, as a means to establish a collective interest.
In that sense, I think we have the wrong end of the stick in this country about what our charter rights mean, in particular the right to free speech.
Mr. Damien Kurek:
If I could follow up on that, we often hear about what the limits of free speech are in the context of the charter as well. I'm wondering if you could expand on that a little bit, because that's often used, I would suggest, as a justification to silence free speech because there is the interpretation of that section of the charter that's often used by government in different ways.
Could you expand on what limitations are reasonable versus not?
Mr. Bruce Pardy:
Yes, sure.
Here's the irony. Your mandate seems to be to inquire into protecting freedom of expression. The asks that I'm hearing are all about governments doing things, subsidizing things or creating more rules and more restrictions. Those things are the opposite of free speech.
If you want free speech, as I alluded to, have government out of it. That's what it means. If you're asking for government to intervene, you're talking about something else altogether. Again, we have this upside down. It's—
Mr. Damien Kurek:
I apologize. Time is short, but I just want to nail down....
One of the aspects of Bill
C-63 is that it changes the definition of hate speech. It moves it from the current objective measure, which is causing violence or harm to....
It could be things that involve offence or the feeling of hurt.
I'm wondering if you could unpack that a little bit in about a minute, and then I have one follow-up question that I want to make sure I get in before the six minutes are up.
Mr. Bruce Pardy:
Sure.
In the text of Bill
C-63, they have tried to draw a line between hate speech on the one side and offensive speech on the other, saying that offensive speech is okay but that hate speech is not okay. That sounds reasonable, but of course,
nobody knows where the line is.
If you are speaking in a way that some people would regard as offensive
, there is no guarantee whatsoever that on a particular occasion, a tribunal or a court is not going to say, “Well, no, that is hate speech, and you're liable.” As soon as you go down the road of the government deciding that you're not allowed to say certain things—which don't violate anybody else's rights, as you're not threatening violence—you're into dangerous territory in which freedom of speech is actually not being observed.
Mr. Damien Kurek:
Thank you.
I have about a minute left.
A common topic of conversation before this committee has been Bill
C-11 and Bill
C-18, the Online News Act and the Online Streaming Act.
In about 45 seconds, I'm wondering if you could share your opinion of those two bills with the committee.
Mr. Bruce Pardy:
These are terrible pieces of legislation. They are interfering with both the speech and also the listening of Canadians.
You can think, in some contexts, of freedom of expression as an exchange between speaker and audience. Both have the right to conduct the exchange—the speaker to speak and the audience to listen.
What these two bills do is give powers to administrators, bureaucrats and offices to interfere in that exchange and to dictate to Canadians what it is they can access and listen to online.
They are terrible pieces of legislation.
The Chair:
You have 15 seconds.
Mr. Bruce Pardy:
That's the answer. Repeal the bills.
Mr. Jamil Jivani (Durham, CPC):
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I'd like to direct my questions to Mr. Pardy.
Mr. Pardy, I think what we've seen on display in some of the comments made today at this meeting is a certain logic that has informed the legislation that you've referenced: Bill
C-11, Bill
C-18 and Bill
C-63. That logic seems to be people pointing to problems in society and suggesting that the expansion of the federal bureaucracy is somehow the necessary solution to those problems. They're not really making a case for the efficacy of that bureaucracy but are nonetheless saying that the bureaucracy must grow and that the Canadian taxpayer must pay for that growth.
I'd like for you to
speak to your concerns related to the expansion of the federal bureaucracy. In particular, I'm referencing some of your writing on the growth of the administrative state.
Mr. Bruce Pardy:
Thank you for that question. I agree with its premise 100%.
We have mangled the idea of rights, such as those in the Charter of Rights.
They're supposed to be negative rights, meaning they are rights against government interference. If the government does not interfere with you, your rights are being observed. We have an idea in this country that there are rights we need the government's help to achieve, that we need the government to intervene in this and to impose on that. This group asks the government to make that group stop saying things about it, because it's not right. That's not the conception of rights we were supposed to have.
The conception we're supposed to have is this: If the government leaves you alone, your rights are being observed. It's government intervening that is the problem. You can see that reflected in the comments and submissions here.
To your larger point,
we have a government that has grown beyond its useful limits. The other day, I saw an estimate that said the public sector has grown to 40% of the economy of this country. That is not sustainable. That is one of the reasons this country is becoming poor. You need more people than that in the private sector to make it possible to have a government. We think that money grows on trees and that government is the solution to everything.
We're in that trap so deep that we cannot see anything else. Whenever there's a problem, the only possible solution is more, not fewer, government programs, rules, taxes and structures.
Sometimes—if not always, in this day and age—the solution is fewer, not more.
Mr. Jamil Jivani:
Anchoring this in our broader conversation about freedom of expression, how would you articulate to the average Canadian citizen why hearing people in Ottawa talk so cavalierly about expanding the footprint of the state may be a danger to their being free to articulate themselves,
particularly when they might disagree with the government and want to be able to express those views?
Mr. Bruce Pardy:
Well,
we're approaching a society in which the government runs the show, period. It's
happened to us slowly and insidiously. It's
grown without actual revolution or anything. It's
the way public authorities spread their influence. It
happens over time. We have
had an administrative state for many years, but it's now as big as it has ever been. By the way, the administrative state is not provided for in our Constitution.
It's not prohibited, but it's not provided for.
Fundamental ideas like the separation of powers among the legislature, the executive and the courts
have been practically put by the wayside.
The bureaucracy now, more or less, runs the show. If you think you live in a free country, and the bureaucracy actually runs the show, you are mistaken. The greatest threat to our liberty now is the administrative state.
Mr. Jamil Jivani:
There's a line you wrote in an article for the National Post that I'd like to ask you to elaborate on. You wrote, “We trusted that these institutions”—by “institutions”, you were referring, in part, to the administrative state—“would commit to their own restraint.... We have been tragically naïve.”
Can you comment on what “restraint” means in this context and, for the purpose of freedom of expression, why people need to be concerned about trusting the administrative state to be restrained in its use of power?
The Chair:
Thank you, Mr. Jivani. I'm glad you came back to the topic at hand, because we were moving away from it.
Mr. Jamil Jivani:
We have been talking about the topic at hand the entire time, actually.
The Chair:
I'll ask the witness to stick to the topic at hand.
Thank you.
Mr. Jamil Jivani:
We've been talking about the topic at hand.
You're wrong. You're editorializing.
Mr. Bruce Pardy:
The rule of law is an idea, and the idea
is that the state is restrained in all kinds of ways, including the way it restrains our speech. The rule of law
depends upon the people in charge believing in the idea. Now they don't believe the state should be restrained. Now they think the solution to everything is the state. When you have conflicts between people who disagree, they both want the state to intervene and make the other guy stop speaking. That's always the way—
The Chair:
Thank you very much.
We have gone a minute over the time, Mr. Jivani.
I'm going to go to the Liberals and Ms. Dhillon for five minutes, please.
Ms. Anju Dhillon (Dorval—Lachine—LaSalle, Lib.):
Thank you.
My first question is for Mr. Pardy. You appeared last week at the House of Commons Standing Committee on Science and Research and spouted talking points from the great replacement theory. This rhetoric has inspired attacks around the world and has been very dangerous.
How do you think such testimony on a largely debunked conspiracy theory is useful for freedom of expression?
Mr. Bruce Pardy:
You are mistaken, Madam. I did not talk about that at all. My submission to that committee was that federal research funding should be abolished.
It had nothing to do with anything you're talking about.
Ms. Anju Dhillon:
You stated it during your testimony.
Mr. Bruce Pardy:
Tell me what I said.
Ms. Anju Dhillon:
You were saying that this theory is something that is supposed to be helpful in freedom of expression and getting the government out of freedom of expression.
My other question for you is whether you know that the government helped—
{
she can’t remember so she is slipping to another question to cover up}
Mr. Bruce Pardy:
No, hold on.
You've accused me of something and I just want to clear it up.
The Chair:
Excuse me. Order, please.
Ms. Dhillon, finish your question.
Ms. Anju Dhillon:
That's it for this witness.
I'm going to ask questions of Ms. Dufresne.
We are hearing a lot of testimony about—
Mr. Damien Kurek:
I have a point of order.
Mr. Jamil Jivani:
Is he allowed to answer the question?
Ms. Anju Dhillon:
No. I got my answer. Thank you.
Mr. Damien Kurek:
Madam Chair, you made it very clear in earlier comments that there was latitude given to the witnesses to answer, so I'd expect the same treatment.
The Chair:
I didn't make it clear that there was latitude. Witnesses cannot go beyond the scope of the study when they're answering. I have allowed a lot of blue-skying to go on here, and I've done that because—
Mr. Jamil Jivani:
No, you haven't. It's all been really relevant.
The Chair:
I'm sorry, Mr. Jivani. I am speaking.
Mr. Jamil Jivani:
You're inserting your own opinions.
The Chair:
Mr. Jivani, I am speaking. When I finish, you may say what you wish to say. I will turn to you for your comment.
The witness was asked a question. He challenged the questioner on it, and
she has decided not to continue the question. She is moving to someone else. I think the witness has had an opportunity to respond to the accusation by the MP.
Now, you wanted to say something, Mr. Jivani.
Mr. Jamil Jivani:
Yes.
I think you're doing a lot of editorializing as our chair and inserting your opinion into the administration of this meeting.
Thank you.
The Chair:
As chair, I can make sure that we stay on topic. That's my job. I don't see how the administration of government and the budget have anything to do with this, but I've allowed it—
Mr. Jamil Jivani:
You don't see how expanding the federal government's power over freedom of expression is relevant.
The Chair:
When I'm speaking, Mr. Jivani, allow me to finish, and then I will allow you to say what you have to say. Allow me to finish.
I think there has been a lot of blue-skying going on here. We've talked about budgets and amounts of money being spent, etc. That is not on topic. The topic is about freedom of expression. That can go into all kinds of corners, and I've allowed people to do that because it is pertinent to freedom of expression. When Mr. Pardy answered about freedom of expression, I let him go into the corners he wished to go into. That's what this is about.
We're not discussing a budget here. I allowed that to happen,
but I'm not going to allow it to happen again. Budgeting for the Government of Canada has nothing to do with freedom of expression. I'm going to move forward.
Ms. Dhillon, you have the floor.
Mr. Jamil Jivani:
This is absurd.
Ms. Anju Dhillon:
Madame Dufresne, my question is for you. You were talking about how the LGBTQ community is facing much discrimination, and how these kinds of rhetoric and things that are being said negatively impact the community.
Can you talk to us a bit about how you, personally, have perceived such misinformation and hatred toward you?
Didi Dufresne:
I experience—as I think we've heard from other speakers—a reluctance to speak out and be clear about transness and trans identity, as a result of an increased attack on trans people. I think we can see this. I don't think it's a surprise coming from.... We have a rhetoric, largely born out of the United States, that trickles its way up to us.
On my flight over, I was listening to the Skrmetti decision. Basically, having our children be able to access their needed medical interventions to allow them to transition in a timely way and not forcing puberty on trans children is up for debate.
Ms. Anju Dhillon:
We keep hearing people complaining about how the government is curbing freedom of expression. If the government wasn't there, do you think that we would have the possibility of same-sex marriage and that it would still not be criminal to be gay?
(1805)
Didi Dufresne:
No. I think those changes needed to be legislated, obviously, and ruled on by the courts.
I would also like to note that we don't enjoy unlimited freedoms in Canada. All of our freedoms are run through a section 1 analysis of balance. I don't think the Canadian state is one where people can just say, “I have the absolute right to say whatever I want.” That's not the society that we live in, and I think that is a good thing.
I also think it's important that the state not only step in when there is very harmful hate speech, but also recognize that we have to pay for the rights that we have. If people are allowed to say hateful things, as a society and as a nation, we have to pay for the harms that then occur. We can either stop the harms or pay for them. It's a choice.
Ms. Anju Dhillon:
How do you see us moving forward? We are seeing more hatred and more discrimination because of these right-wing groups getting pushed and encouraged by people who are.... Some colleagues of mine—
The Chair:
You have 30 seconds.
Ms. Anju Dhillon:
How can we fight against that?
Didi Dufresne:
I think there can be limits. Obviously, we have limits to speech. That's an accepted principle, doctrinally.
Additionally, I am also very concerned with limits on people's gender expression, particularly with youth. We see this happening in province after province. Alberta today announced a potential ban on children using the gender of their choice.
Ms. Anju Dhillon:
Then theories such as the great replacement theory would hurt interracial marriages.
Didi Dufresne:
Yes, that's correct.
Ms. Anju Dhillon:
How would those interracial marriages and people from different communities and religions be perceived?
The Chair:
Go ahead. I've let others go over time, so I'll give you 15 seconds to answer, Ms. Dufresne.
Didi Dufresne:
Yes, I take the member's point that all of these are inextricably linked. I think we've heard from another witness that an intersectional approach is crucial to understanding different points of view.
Ms. Anju Dhillon:
Thank you so much, Ms. Dufresne. Thank you for the work you're doing.
The Chair:
Thank you, Ms. Dhillon.
Now I go to Monsieur Champoux for two and a half minutes, please.
[
Translation]
Mr. Martin Champoux:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I would like to put my questions, once again, to the representatives of the Chaire de recherche France-Québec sur les enjeux contemporains de la liberté d'expression.
I want to talk about the heightened sensitivities seen in recent years. The phenomenon exists all across society.
I'm thinking of the sensitivities that have led, for example, to banning books on a variety of subjects, whether in academia or the artistic community. People even went so far as to cancel university professors' and CEGEP teachers' projects. That concerns me, and I am not the only one.
Do you think that has a significant impact on society? Can the artistic community, the academic community and society at large repair the damage caused by this trend?
My question is for any of the three representatives.
Mrs. Maryse Potvin:
In our brief, we talk about the role of social media and the media overall. They may exacerbate the effects of certain types of disinformation, cyber-bullying, fake news and so forth. Obviously, all of that has an impact on scientific data, knowledge and scientific research.
What Mr. Gaudreau‑DesBiens may not have had time to say earlier is that we also recommend establishing much stricter regulatory frameworks that impose obligations on digital platforms. The Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, the Office of the Privacy Commissioner or the Competition Bureau could be granted powers to oversee that. Alternatively, an independent dedicated authority could be created to monitor the platforms. A number of options are possible.
In addition, we made recommendations to address social media concerns. As we point out, social media environments build and amplify echo chambers and disinformation, which has repercussions for science and knowledge.
We also recommended that the government put much stricter safeguards in place to protect science. This would involve recognizing institutions of knowledge, including those under provincial jurisdiction such as universities, to give them greater protection overall. I'm talking about the Government of Canada and the Parliament of Canada recognizing science and institutions of knowledge as essential components of Canada's constitutional democracy.
In countries such as Germany, science, knowledge and scientific freedom are constitutionally protected.
(1810)
[
English]
The Chair:
Thank you. I'm going to have to cut you off here.
[
Translation]
Mr. Martin Champoux:
Sorry, Ms. Potvin, but I have a limited amount of time.
Thank you very much.
[
English]
The Chair:
I'm going to go to Ms. Ashton.
Ms. Niki Ashton:
Thank you very much.
I'd like to go back to Ms. Majid.
I know you referenced it in your opening statement, and we got to it in the first round of questions. How important is it for the anti-racism strategy put forward by the government to include a definition of anti-Palestinian racism? As you pointed out, there is one that's globally agreed upon. How important is it for the strategy itself to include that definition within it?
Mrs. Dania Majid:
Yes, what would be really important is, first, the recognition of anti-Palestinian racism, and then the definition that will help illustrate what we mean by that. By having it in there, it signals to Canadians that this is a distinct and serious form of racism that is being experienced by a broad range of Canadians.
Again, in her report, the UN special rapporteur on freedom of opinion and expression talks about that global repression around Palestinian rights and expression. This isn't the first report from the UN warning about this global repression of Palestinian rights.
[
Translation]
Mr. Martin Champoux:
I have a point of order, Madam Chair.
[
English]
The Chair:
Excuse me for a minute. I have Monsieur Champoux.
[
Translation]
Mr. Martin Champoux:
Madam Chair, could you ask the witness to raise her microphone so that it's not quite so close to her mouth? We can hear noise, and it's making things difficult for the interpreter.
[
English]
The Chair:
Thank you.
I would ask the witness to please move her microphone up a bit.
We'll see how that helps, because we are not hearing you. Your breathing is intervening. I know that we would like you to continue breathing, but let's not have it intervene.
Thank you.
Mrs. Dania Majid:
I'm very sorry about that. This is the first time I've used this headset.
Having that recognition there will help us address the anti-Palestinian racism that does exist systemically and ensure that our freedom of expression is upheld, as it is for other Canadians.
Ms. Niki Ashton:
Thank you very much, Ms. Majid. There's no reason to apologize. We're very grateful that we're here and hearing from you.
I want to go back to the question of the chilling effect. We're talking about what the ICJ has referred to as a plausible genocide happening in Gaza and, obviously, we know as well about the bombing of Lebanon that has occurred over the last number of weeks. We also know that Canada is complicit in terms of both the arms trade and financial transfers, and of course, through the political cover that Canada has given to Netanyahu's regime.
I'm wondering, when we're talking about hundreds of thousands of Canadians speaking out, coming out on the streets and sharing on social media, how deeply troubling it is that there's a chilling effect in a country like Canada, where we claim to uphold human rights in a vivid democracy and in democratic debate, including on foreign policy. How problematic is this chilling effect?
Mrs. Dania Majid:
It demonstrates that we have a discriminatory practice around rights and that rights are not fully enjoyed equally among Canadians.
The second ICJ decision also recognized that Israel was practising or conducting an illegal occupation and apartheid of Palestinian land as well. Palestinians have the right to speak out about these systemic and long-standing atrocities and violations of international law. By curbing our expression...and it's being curbed in such a way that we have reports or we've been informed of people who have been fired for simply posting “ceasefire now” on their social media pages—
(1815)
The Chair:
Could you please wrap up? Thank you. We're going over the time here.
Mrs. Dania Majid:
Yes. What is happening is that protected speech—criticizing a state—is being increasingly criminalized or resulting in workplace reprisals, and that is what's causing the chilling effect.
The Chair:
Thank you very much.
Thank you, Ms. Ashton.
I now go to the Conservatives for five minutes, please, with Mr. Kurek.
Mr. Damien Kurek:
Thank you, Madam Chair. I will be splitting my time with Mr. Jivani.
Mr. Pardy, a fairly serious accusation was levied against you, and you didn't have a chance to respond
. I'd invite you now—and I would give you the opportunity—to speak to that if you wish.
Mr. Bruce Pardy:
Thank you.
I don't think there's very much response required.
The member accused me of talking about a topic that I didn't talk about at the meeting. I wanted her to quote me the line that she thought was about that,
and there isn't one. As far as I'm concerned,
she's off the mark.
Mr. Damien Kurek:
I appreciate that.
Go ahead, Mr. Jivani.
Mr. Jamil Jivani:
Thank you.
This is also for Mr. Pardy.
The chair of this committee bizarrely suggested that the discussion we were having about the growth of the bureaucracy is irrelevant to Bill
C-11, Bill
C-18 and Bill
C-63. Could you maybe explain, for the benefit of everyone listening,
why the conversation about the administrative state is important for these pieces of legislation related to freedom of expression?
Mr. Bruce Pardy:
It would be my pleasure.
That's what these three bills do. Bill
C-11, Bill
C-18 and, in part, Bill
C-63 grow the administrative state.
They grow the bureaucracy.
These bills give powers to administrative bodies, to bureaucrats, to make rules. If you look in the statutes, you don't even know what the rules are. That's what we mean by the expansion of the administrative state.
Our freedom of speech, our freedom to listen to what we want, is now in the hands of a bureaucracy. That bureaucracy is not just enforcing the rules made by Parliament. Parliament, instead, has delegated its authority to that bureaucracy to decide what the rules are going to be. This is what I was alluding to when I talked about the disintegration of the separation of powers and the growth of the administrative state. Our rights are now not in the hands of Parliament, but in the hands of the bureaucrats to whom Parliament has delegated its authority. In this way, and in so many others, your freedom of speech is in peril.
You don't even know what the rules are, because those rules have not been made yet. They'll be made in a back corner, in a back room, and not with the sunlight in the House of Commons, in a debate about what the rules ought to be. Therefore, Bill C-11, Bill C-18 and, to some extent, Bill C-63 are all good illustrations of this trend and of how our rights, including our right to free speech, are being eroded.
Mr. Jamil Jivani:
Thank you, Mr. Pardy.
I do hope every member of this committee
paid close attention to what you said. I thought it was an excellent explanation.
Relatedly, what would you say to Canadians who are concerned about freedom of speech? Why should they be concerned about there being so much power over what Canadians can see, say and hear, and about that being controlled by unelected bureaucrats in Ottawa?
Mr. Bruce Pardy:
It means that your rights don't mean anything. It means that your rights are dependent upon decisions made by unelected people who are not accountable to you or to anybody else for that matter.
You can't tell where the line is.
When you go online or out in the streets and know that you might be punished for something bad that you say, and when you don't know where the line is between hateful and offensive, then that means your speech is chilled. If you live in a country where you have to think twice before you speak because you're concerned about getting into legal trouble, then you know you probably don't live in a free country.
Mr. Jamil Jivani:
Thank you, Mr. Pardy.
The Chair:
There is a minute and 12 seconds left, if anybody wants to pick that up on the Conservative tab. No, you're fine. Okay, that's good.
Then go ahead for five minutes, please, Mr. Noormohamed.
Mr. Taleeb Noormohamed:
I'm following this discussion with a lot of interest. I've listened to Mr. Pardy talk about the risks of limitations on freedom of speech.
Ms. Majid, you've expressed similar concerns in respect of views related to those who have been advocating for the Palestinian cause.
Mr. Pardy, having heard the testimony of Ms. Majid, would you agree with her concerns?
(1820)
Mr. Bruce Pardy:
No. I understand where she's coming from in terms of people being able to speak, but
I believe that she's confusing two things. Free speech is a right held against the government. If you are allowed to speak—that is,
the laws don't prevent you from speaking—but somebody else hears what you say and acts accordingly—for example, let's say that you lose your job—then that is not a free speech issue, because you don't have a right to free speech against your employer. It has nothing to do with free speech.
People on the left, if I can put it that way, are fond of saying that you have rights, but there are consequences to exercising your choice. This is one of those consequences. If you choose to say something—which you are free to do—
and somebody else decides that they don't like what you said, then they are free to respond as well.
Ms. Niki Ashton:
I have a point of order, Madam Chair.
The Chair:
Yes, go ahead, Ms. Ashton.
Ms. Niki Ashton:
I'm not sure what the Liberals are doing here, but I have a real issue with trialing one witness's remarks about systemic discrimination with another—
Mr. Taleeb Noormohamed:
I have a point of order, Madam Chair.
This is debate, and actually, I get to ask the questions I want to ask.
The Chair:
Mr. Noormohamed, allow me to respond to Ms. Ashton.
Ms. Ashton, that is not a point of order. That's debate, so we shall go ahead.
Mr. Noormohamed, continue with your line of questioning.
Mr. Taleeb Noormohamed:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
If Ms. Ashton had let me finish, which clearly is not what she wanted, I was actually going to ask Ms. Majid to respond, because I think it's really important in these conversations, when we're talking about freedom of expression and freedom of speech, to get to the heart of some of the challenges that people are facing on all sides of political discourse and actually have thoughtful, meaningful conversations.
Mr. Jivani and I may not always agree on things, but I actually enjoy hearing what he has to say because it's important for us to be able to hear each other. If we're going to have a study about freedom of expression, it would be good to be able to hear each other.
I'm going to turn it over to Ms. Majid to respond. I would really like to hear what she has to say, because I think there is some confusion. We need to make it clear how people are able to exercise their rights.
Mrs. Dania Majid:
I would say it is state interference when police kick down protesters' doors at four o'clock in the morning with tactical units and guns drawn to arrest someone for mischief. We do not see that in any other context. It's strictly because of their activism around Palestine.
We have also seen the Government of Ontario having a hate crimes working group that's not transparent. We don't understand what the relationship is with policing, the Crown and the prosecution of people—protesters—who are arrested. We know that protesters are being arrested. There are upwards of 100 Torontonians who have been arrested for their participation in protests.
The provincial government, again in Ontario, has an attestation policy in its workplaces so it will not hire people—students in particular—who have signed open letters in support of Palestinian rights. It's forcing them to declare whether they have signed or not before they get a job interview or a job offer. I would say that this is state interference.
The trend goes on. There are many examples of where the government has made decisions around Palestinian [
Inaudible—Editor]—
The Chair:
You have one minute.
Mrs. Dania Majid:
—and legislated around that.
Mr. Taleeb Noormohamed:
Thank you, Ms. Majid.
With the last minute, I'd like to turn to Ms. Dufresne.
First of all, thank you for the work that you and Qmunity do in my hometown of Vancouver. It's important work on so many different fronts. Your advocacy is really appreciated. The work that your organization and the community do is really important.
One thing I want to do with the time that we have left is give you the opportunity to speak about the chilling effect on the freedom of expression or people's freedom of speech—particularly when it comes to young people who are dealing with sexual orientation and gender identity—what that does and what it has led to in terms of suicide, mental health issues, addictions and so on.
Can you spend a few minutes just giving us all of the consequences of what we sometimes take for granted?
Didi Dufresne:
I think we see, as a result of the promulgation of transphobic and homophobic sentiments, real impacts on trans, queer and non-binary youth, like increased suicidal ideations and increased need for support.
It really gets to the heart of your existence when what you hear and what you experience society's message to be is that everything about you is odious. It really hits at your core, and being able to exist as a full person is very difficult. I think we see that with youth. They're little and it's really hard.
(1825)
The Chair:
Thank you very much, Mr. Noormohamed.
I've been approached by members of the committee and asked if the committee would agree, because we still have about 12 minutes left, to go to two-minute rounds for everyone.
I will go to Mr. Waugh for two minutes, please.
Mr. Kevin Waugh:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
A few years ago, I remember the government signing off on Canada summer jobs when there was an attestation attached to it. Certain organizations across the country were forced to make a decision to either steadfastly say that they don't believe in this and they will not apply for Canada summer jobs, or bear down and decide as a group that they will sign the attestation, even though they don't believe in it.
Mr. Pardy,
we've heard a little bit about attestations; it was brought up here.
That's one example where government certainly, I think, exceeded its boundaries on the Canada summer jobs in signing off on the attestation forms, which affected so many people across this country and organizations that then did not partake in Canada summer jobs.
What are your thoughts?
Mr. Bruce Pardy:
I totally agree.
The government today, the administrative state, works with carrots and with sticks. The
sticks are prohibitions that will punish you if you misbehave, and the carrots are government benefits that they'll give you as long as you do what they say. That is one way they will control or try to control your speech: “
You will sign on to this, or you will not get equal access to the benefits we are providing.”
Mr. Kevin Waugh:
They got no benefits. If you didn't sign on, you weren't eligible for the Canada summer jobs program. There was no grey area.
The Chair:
You have 30 seconds.
Mr. Kevin Waugh:
There was no grey area.
It was either you sign or you don't get it.
Mr. Bruce Pardy:
That's right.
That's exactly so.
That is an indirect form of compelled speech, in my books. That ought to be a no-no, as far as I am concerned.
The Chair:
Thank you very much, Kevin.
I'm going to go now to Mr. Noormohamed for two minutes, please.
Mr. Taleeb Noormohamed:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I'm going to go back to Ms. Dufresne.
We have seen an assault on the rights of individuals in Alberta recently around some of the legislation that has been passed by Premier Smith. In B.C., thankfully, stuff like that is not going to see the light of day.
What concerns do you have if a potential Conservative government were to get into the business of passing legislation like that? What would it do to the community that you work with on a daily basis?
Didi Dufresne:
I think it would put people who are already in distress in even further distress and drive people even further into the closet.
A few years ago, we were seeing a real increase in people being able to come out and appreciate the full sense of who they are in terms of their sexuality and their gender expression, and I think you would see a real rollback of that, absolutely.
Mr. Taleeb Noormohamed:
We're talking about freedom of expression. When we started this meeting, you said that you use the pronouns “she”, “he” and “they”.
A lot of people lose their mind about pronouns. I can't understand why anyone would give a damn what pronouns anybody uses. Why do you think people on the right are so triggered by the use of pronouns, when they talk about freedom of expression as one of their calling cards?
Didi Dufresne:
I think that it gets at a false sense of a binary that people really hold on to, in that you have to be one thing or another, and it is the thing that they think you are. I think it really pushes at people's sense of reality, and I think that's very distressing to some people, unfortunately.
(1830)
The Chair:
Thank you, Mr. Noormohamed.
I will now go to Monsieur Champoux for two minutes, please.
[
Translation]
Mr. Martin Champoux:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Once again, I'm going to turn to my friends from the Chaire de recherche France-Québec sur les enjeux contemporains de la liberté d'expression.
You work alongside French researchers. Would you say that Quebec and Canada are way behind France when it comes to education, digital literacy and media literacy? Obviously, all of those things help to prevent disinformation.
Are we behind? Are there things France is doing that we should learn from and implement here?
What are your thoughts on that?
Mr. Gaudreault‑DesBiens or Ms. Potvin can answer that.
Mrs. Maryse Potvin:
I'm going to let my colleague answer because I talked a lot earlier.
Mr. Jean-François Gaudreault-DesBiens:
I think states need to consider not just the tools they have to educate the public, young people, in particular, on the challenges that digital platforms pose, but also the possible regulation of digital platforms. Europe is a lot farther ahead in that space.
The Libertarian speech—which is practically a sociological fact—common in the U.S. does exist in Europe, but less so. At the outset, it is widely recognized—although not unanimously, but probably by the majority of people—that freedom of expression is sometimes better protected when you protect the means used to express free speech in certain situations.
In other words, freedom of expression is not necessarily seen as a liberty that is strictly negative, even though it primarily is. Obviously, since that is taken for granted, a government has to be very careful when it acts to restrict or regulate freedom of expression.
That said, I think Europe is much farther along in that area. That's about all I can say in a few seconds.
Mr. Martin Champoux:
Australia has taken the approach of banning social media for those under the age of 16, so they can't access that kind of content. Is that the right approach? Is it good or bad?
I know I don't have any time left, but I would still like to get an answer to that.
Mr. Jean-François Gaudreault-DesBiens:
Personally, I tend to see it as a good thing.
Mr. Martin Champoux:
I'm being told that I have some time left.
If you can, please elaborate on that, Mr. Gaudreault‑DesBiens.
Mr. Jean-François Gaudreault-DesBiens:
I'm not an expert on Australia's approach, but I think it's based on scientific evidence showing that technology platforms and social media networks can result in psychological and even neurological harm to young people under the age of 16.
In that sense, it is almost a public health issue to some extent. The equation changes a bit when you weigh and balance freedom of expression, on one hand, and free access to platforms, on the other, as compared with public health considerations.
Mr. Martin Champoux:
I gather from your comments that it's something we could consider. You aren't opposed to exploring the idea.
I would like to thank the witnesses, especially Mr. Gaudreault‑DesBiens, Ms. Lefebvre and Ms. Potvin, for being with us today. Their input has been very helpful.
[
English]
Thank you.
We'll go to Ms. Ashton for two minutes, please.
Ms. Niki Ashton:
Thank you very much.
My final question is for Ms. Majid.
We know that recently Francesca Albanese, the United Nations special rapporteur on the occupied Palestinian territories, came to Canada. In an unprecedented move for a UN rapporteur, the Liberal
Minister of Foreign Affairs refused to meet with her. Senior representatives of Global Affairs Canada refused to meet with her. The foreign affairs committee of Parliament retracted an invitation for her to present. It's a clear reflection of the chilling effect, not just vis-à-vis somebody who is outspoken on what is happening in the occupied Palestinian territories and the presumed genocide, but also for an officer of the UN, a UN special rapporteur.
How troubling is it, and frankly unacceptable, that Canada showed this kind of response to a UN special rapporteur, somebody who is speaking out on what is happening to the Palestinians and Palestine?
Mrs. Dania Majid:
Yes, it was exceptionally troubling, especially because she was here, coming to Canada from New York, after presenting her latest report on the genocide in Gaza. Canada, as a signatory to a range of international conventions, including the fourth Geneva Convention, has a responsibility to prevent and stop a genocide. They refused to hear from her or even explore with her what Canada can do in terms of our policies to ensure that they are not complicit in this genocide.
(1835)
The Chair:
You have 30 seconds.
Mrs. Dania Majid:
This is a signal to Palestinians and Canadians that, again, there is no freedom to speak on Palestine with government, and it has a real impact on what Palestinians are going through in Palestine right now and the extreme harms that continue 14 months in.
Ms. Niki Ashton:
Thank you very much, Ms. Majid, for speaking out. Your voice is one that we have a responsibility to hear. I know that you speak on behalf of many, obviously, as well as the ACLA.
Thank you so much for being with us today.
The Chair:
Thank you, Ms. Ashton.
I would like to take the liberty, as chair, to ask a question of Ms. Dufresne.
Ms. Dufresne, what is happening today with young children who are not allowed to use their pronouns and are therefore subject to bullying in schools? We are now seeing the outcome of the Alberta legislation, which is causing those young kids to be bullied by their peers and is moving many of them to mental health problems and suicide. What is your response to that? How do we do something to protect the children who are being bullied and who are mentally ill as a result of this?
Thank you.
Didi Dufresne:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I think you're spot-on. That absolutely is what's happening. Children are being bullied. They're being prevented from living their true and authentic self. As a result, they're developing mental health problems. It's incredibly stressful to be told that what you are is hateful. To be a young person without an ability to deal with that.... It makes total sense that kids end up trying to take their own life and are in fact dying by suicide as a result of this hateful rhetoric.
What can we do to support them? I think kids need increased counselling. They need access to gender-affirming care. They need to be able to socially transition from a young age. There's no harm in it. Let's say a youth decides they're transgender. They're living in a gender they weren't assigned to at birth. Later down the line, they take some puberty blockers, or they don't medically transition but socially transition. A few years later, if they decide that's not actually how they feel, there was no actual harm done.
If we just accept that gender can exist in a fluid continuum, and we don't try to stick people in rigid boxes, I think you'll have a lot less fear and trauma and the negative consequences that we're seeing as a result.
The Chair:
I'm going to ask one more question. I'm giving myself the opportunity to take two minutes.
Canada is a signatory to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. Does this contravene that United Nations declaration?
Didi Dufresne:
Madam Chair, unfortunately, I don't feel qualified to speak to that.
I would say that not allowing children to transition socially, and then later medically, really hampers their ability to self-identify and grow into their true selves, and it hampers their mental health.
The Chair:
Thank you very much.
I want to thank all the witnesses and the committee for their patience.
This meeting is adjourned.
vimeo.com
):
