Canadian Heritage Committee on Oct. 30th, 2024

[Christine Van Geyn]

I'm a little confused by the line of questioning. Parliament can legislate. Legislation is subject to our Constitution, which can then be reviewed by the—

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

Okay. We can get more into this later.

Were you concerned when the former premier of New Brunswick, who recently transitioned into being the former premier, and Premier Moe in Nova Scotia were trying to put restrictions on a child's right to use the pronouns they want to use?

[Christine Van Geyn]

That's an issue we haven't taken a position on at the CCF.

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

I'm asking your opinion, though.

[Christine Van Geyn]

I'm here speaking as a representative of an organization. I'm not going to give you my opinion on that particular issue, which is a live issue—

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

Okay. My final question to you—

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Kevin Waugh]

You're at five minutes and 10 seconds, so I have to move on.

We'll go to Mr. Champoux of the Bloc for two and a half minutes.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Thank you. Two and a half minutes go by very quickly.

Mr. Rainville and Mrs. Barraband, you talked earlier about Bill C‑63 and its shortcomings. Regarding hate speech, do you think we need regulations in line with what the Criminal Code already provides for civic life, for example? Do you think that might infringe on freedom of expression or freedoms of expression, since it is an umbrella term?

[Pierre Rainville]

Sometimes we have to be reassured. The bill carefully repeats the exact wording of the guidelines set out by the Supreme Court, namely that discrediting, vexing and offending do not constitute hate speech. It is very helpful to see that in black and white in a bill as opposed to something in a ruling. So it would be both in the Criminal Code and in the Canadian Human Rights Act. I think that is very helpful.

On the other hand, the scope of the financial penalties set out in the bill is worrisome. I find them really excessive. Before the bill goes to a vote, I think some parameters need to be set.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

We certainly agree that the bill has many weaknesses, but we mustn't throw the baby out with the bathwater. The bill needs some work; it needs a clearer framework.

[Pierre Rainville]

I agree.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

We were talking earlier about artistic freedom and academic freedom. We are talking about all kinds of freedom of expression.

In the Criminal Code, there is a religious exception that allows individuals to say things that can be extremely violent and extremely hateful. Those individuals can do so with impunity because of the protection of religious beliefs. Do you think that exceeds what we should tolerate in terms of freedom of expression?

That leads me draw to a parallel with artistic freedom. I wonder how far we can go in protecting artistic freedom. We know that extremely violent things can be said under the guise of artistic freedom.

How can we navigate those areas while respecting individuals' beliefs?

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Kevin Waugh]

You have 10 seconds left.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

My apologies, my question was long.

[Pierre Rainville]

As to the Criminal Code provision, it is clearly an attempt to reconcile freedom of religion with freedom of expression. It is an old provision. The difficulty is that this provision can be invoked even though it has already been demonstrated that the person in question wanted to fuel hatred towards a community.

That proof is required when using that defence.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Kevin Waugh]

Thank you, Mr. Rainville.

I'm going to move to Niki Ashton of the NDP for two and a half minutes.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill—Keewatinook Aski, MB]

My question is for Dr. Ge.

In the 1970s, provisions were added to the Criminal Code that prohibited the promotion of genocide and the incitement of hatred towards identifiable groups. The Harper Conservatives worked hard to remove a number of these protections, but the Supreme Court has been clear that the promotion of hate propaganda doesn't contribute and, in fact, “distort[s] or limit[s] the robust and free exchange of ideas by its tendency to silence the voice of its target group.”

When the Conservative leader describes Israel's expanding its bombing campaign as a “gift” to the world, or when the Liberal Prime Minister sends weapons that could be used for what the ICJ considers a plausible genocide, are these not escalations? Are these not acts of hate?

If we're going to talk about the role of government vis-à-vis freedom of expression and the need to protect freedom of expression but take a clear stand against hate, can we not talk about this wilful incitement of hate by two of the most powerful political figures in Canada at this time?

[Dr. Yipeng Ge]

Yes, I couldn't agree more. These are examples of not only manufactured consent for genocide but also explicit monetary and material support for genocide.

There should most certainly be guardrails for the freedom of expression around manufacturing consent for genocide, as per these two examples that you have given. I would argue that to incite such...to commend the genocidal colonial violence that Israel is committing and to allow that to extend beyond Palestine into Lebanon and into multiple other countries in the region is entirely unbecoming of a Canadian politician.

With regard to the other Canadian politician you mentioned, who is materially aiding Israel in its genocidal campaign against Palestinians.... They most certainly need to be held accountable in both freedom of expression limitations and setting appropriate guardrails, but there also must be accountability around the actual, literal funding and support for a genocide that is unfolding before our eyes and that is before the courts, including the International Court of Justice.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill—Keewatinook Aski, MB]

Thank you so much, Dr. Ge.

I want to take the opportunity to thank you for coming to our committee and for sharing your strength and courage. You speak on behalf of many, and I hope that this committee will take seriously what you've shared with us about how people are paying the price for freedom of expression in our country right now, and for speaking up for human rights, peace and justice.

Thank you.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Kevin Waugh]

Thank you, Ms. Ashton.

I'll make an editorial decision. Because we started late, in the final round with the Conservatives and Liberals, we'll go for four minutes each.

Mr. Kurek, you have four minutes.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I appreciate our witnesses being here, although I do find it astounding that the NDP and Dr. Ge just suggested that somehow the Leader of the Opposition was guilty of a criminal offence for standing up for Jews' having the right to their own state.

Ms. Van Geyn, Bill C-11—

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill—Keewatinook Aski, MB]

I have a point of order.

I think we need to be accurate. Nobody said such a thing. The quote that I shared was with respect to Israel's bombing. Let the record show exactly what was said rather than Conservative interpretations.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Kevin Waugh]

Okay.

We'll move on, Mr. Kurek.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Canadians can judge for themselves.

Ms. Van Geyn, when it comes to Bill C-11, do you see it in conflict with the basic freedoms that Canadians are guaranteed in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms?

[Christine Van Geyn]

I do have issues with Bill C-11, particularly the ability of the CRTC to regulate user-generated content. That, I think, is the biggest concern. The analogy that a lot of us who are online content creators, Canadians, have given is this: If a bookstore is ordered by the government to put certain books in the window and certain books at the back, would we view that as a censorious government act?

That is the analogy that a lot of us in that ecosystem have been using with regard to what the Bill C-11 CRTC power to put its thumb on the algorithm is doing.