Canadian Heritage Committee on Oct. 30th, 2024

[Dr. Yipeng Ge]

There was the Conservative private member's bill that I mentioned earlier. Also, I think there's a role for policy-makers and parliamentarians here to defend the right to free speech, so that we don't fully descend into a fascist government, like what we're seeing in Israel.

To be able to protect our free speech and to be able to criticize and find constructive ways forward, so we recentre human rights, people and care and dignity, are the utmost things we can do.

Thank you.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Kevin Waugh]

Thank you very much, Ms. Ashton.

We'll move to the second round with the Conservative Party and Mr. Gourde.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lévis—Lotbinière, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to thank all of the witnesses.

My first question is for Mr. Rainville.

Bills C‑11, C‑18 and C‑63, among others, attempt to establish a framework for freedom of expression in Canada. The line between what is possible and acceptable and what is not is nonetheless very thin.

Where do you draw the line?

[Pierre Rainville]

Very fortunately, the Supreme Court did draw some lines in the sand. Bill C‑63, for example, which I have looked over quite a bit, is in many ways faithful to the Supreme Court's rulings over the past 15 years.

The definition of hate speech is no broader than what the Supreme Court allows in terms of protecting freedom of expression. It is true that it updates section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act, which was repealed in 2013. The Supreme Court had nonetheless considered that provision valid. It is really another aspect of the bill that bothers me and that has gone undetected, so to speak, because the goal is very noble. It is the bill's definition of the sexual victimization of children. Let me give you two examples.

First, the bill does not include the defences provided in the Criminal Code. This is not criminal law, to be sure, but there is a defence related to artistic creation that applies to all forms of expression. In Bill C‑63, however, that defence is for visual representation, photographs and images, but very strangely, not for written expression. So there is variable protection for creative freedom or artistic freedom that requires a person to publish a photograph. Then artistic expression is protected all of a sudden. In the case of purely written expression, it is not.

I do not want to get into examples that are too specific, but I think the next one is telling. The bill prohibits written material that promotes sexual relations that are legal. For example, the bill would make it illegal to promote online a sexual relationship between someone who is 17 and a half and someone aged 20, who is thus of the age of majority. That is very surprising to me if not to say explosive. Once again, I don't want the bill to be thrown into the trash, that's not what I am saying, but we have not identified certain limits or exceptions to freedom of expression that are nonetheless significant.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lévis—Lotbinière, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Rainville.

What do you think about the idea of giving the CRTC greater powers through legislation to control content on television, radio or digital platforms?

[Pierre Rainville]

I gave you the example of a decision made by the Federal Court of Appeal last year. It admonished the CRTC, albeit very diplomatically, because, in its majority decision, the members said nothing about freedom of expression, and they actually required written apologies from the national broadcaster. A friend of the court was named to defend the CRTC's position. That friend of the court said it was obvious that the members had considered it because the dissenting members, for their part, made a big deal of it.

The Federal Court of Appeal replied that it was indeed shocking that the members had not mentioned it whereas the dissenting members, for their part, were concerned about the negative impact on journalistic freedom and independence. I think that any legislative measure should emphasize enshrining journalistic independence, which of course should not go unchecked either. Certain guidelines must be balanced, to be sure, but I think the CRTC should be required in its decisions to give priority to freedom of expression, freedom of the press and journalistic independence. That is not always the case, however.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lévis—Lotbinière, QC]

In Canada, we have foreign interference that seeks to intimidate Canadians, to direct them, which limits their freedom of expression.

Please begin your reply. If you don't have time to finish, you may send it to the committee in writing because it could be lengthy.

[Pierre Rainville]

I will be as succinct as possible.

In its decision in the Zundel case in 1992, the Supreme Court invalidated the crime of disseminating fake news. Various people think that the legislator cannot take action as a result of that decision. I think that is misguided.

Let me give you an example. France has enacted very balanced legislation. It is innovative. I am referring to an electoral law that prohibits the mass dissemination of fake news. It does not pertain to exaggerations or mere opinions, but rather what can be objectively verified as fake news, such as something from a foreign state that is likely to affect the outcome of an election. So it is possible. The French Constitutional Council validated this and provided guidelines for interpretation.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Kevin Waugh]

Thank you, Mr. Rainville.

We're going to move for five minutes to Mr. Noormohamed from the Liberal Party.

You have five minutes, please.

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to start by thanking all of the witnesses for being here.

I'd like to start with Ms. Van Geyn.

Could you take a moment to clarify for me something I want to make sure I heard correctly?

When you were talking about Bill C-63, did you say that the law was too tough on hate speech?

[Christine Van Geyn]

Yes, I think that the issue is with statutizing the definition, which is an inherently subjective definition. I think there's an issue with the ability to add a new penalty when there's another offence committed to basically overcharge defendants.

I can give you an example.

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

No, that's fine.

What I want to dig into is this: What would you say to members of the Jewish community or the Muslim community who right now are seeing incredible spikes in anti-Semitism and Islamophobia, which are resulting in violent physical assaults on people and institutions?

The argument many of them make is that hate speech leads to these things, these types of actions. Would you agree with that?

[Christine Van Geyn]

Violence is, of course, criminalized already. I think there's an issue with all kinds of things like bail conditions and repeat violent offenders not being put in prison. Please, criminalize violence. Put people who commit violent acts—

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

Do you believe that there is a correlation between incitement and hate speech and people's responses, or do you think that people act independently of those two things?

[Christine Van Geyn]

Incitement to violence is also criminalized. We take no issue with incitement to violence.

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

Okay. I appreciate very much your speaking about the importance of freedom.

Do you believe in freedom of expression as being beyond just words?

[Christine Van Geyn]

Of course.

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

Do you think that a woman should be able to wear a niqab?

[Christine Van Geyn]

Of course I do.

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

Do you think that it was inappropriate for the Conservative government, when Stephen Harper was prime minister, to put forward a niqab ban on women?

[Christine Van Geyn]

I don't have a comment on that. I don't. I'm not familiar with—

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

I'm asking you.... Okay. You're not familiar with the proposed niqab ban.

[Christine Van Geyn]

We do not think governments should ban religious clothing of any kind.

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

You do not think that the government should ever ban religious clothing. Is that correct?

[Christine Van Geyn]

I do not think they should. The Quebec government is doing that now.