Canadian Heritage Committee on Oct. 30th, 2024

[Anju Dhillon, Liberal, Dorval—Lachine—LaSalle, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My first question is for Mrs. Barraband.

You talked about creative freedom and academic freedom. You also talked about the fact that other countries have incorporated this into their constitutions.

How do you think Canada could do the same?

[Mathilde Barraband]

Adopting laws in support of freedom of artistic expression is a recommendation of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, or UNESCO. There are several parts to that. It provides for the protection of expression as such, so the production and dissemination of art, but it also pays attention to the status of artists and the conditions under which they practise.

I believe you've already produced a report on these issues in this committee.

In Quebec, there's an in-depth review of the act on the status of the artist.

For the time being, work remains to be done on the issue of artistic expression and, certainly, on the specificity of that expression, on the risk-taking it entails. We also have to try to paint a picture, since artists' assaults have been on the rise since 2018, for all kinds of reasons.

So I think we could draw inspiration, for example, from countries that have passed legislation to protect artistic expression, as France has done recently. That's one example.

[Anju Dhillon, Liberal, Dorval—Lachine—LaSalle, QC]

What kind of artistic expression is being protected? Can you give us an example of what is being done in France?

[Mathilde Barraband]

I'm talking about all artistic expression: Anything that has an artistic purpose, not necessarily an artistic value. This applies equally to cinema, publishing houses, shows and museums. All art forms benefit from increased protection.

[Anju Dhillon, Liberal, Dorval—Lachine—LaSalle, QC]

Okay.

In your presentation, you mentioned the fact that art controversies are sometimes politicized. You touched on that a bit. I don't think you had a chance to delve into it.

Can you expand a bit on what you mean by that?

[Mathilde Barraband]

Yes, of course.

This is a point that comes up often in the field studies I do with stakeholders in the cultural sector. I make a comparison between France and Quebec. That gives us a picture that's much broader than strictly what's going on in our country. Obviously, the connections to the rest of Canada as well are absolutely valuable and important.

Participants in my studies tell me that they're increasingly under pressure from their audience, but also from their patrons, those who fund them. However, there are political requirements that sometimes complicate their relationship with their audience.

I mentioned two completely different examples. I talked about the Conservative culture war. I also talked about progressive struggles. The people I'm interviewing don't necessarily have the same positioning with each other. They talk to me more clearly about self-censorship. I'm thinking, for example, of the pressure being put on libraries to cancel invitations for drag queens to come and do readings in libraries, requests for the removal of texts that talk about gender issues or issues of racism. In those cases, librarians are asking for protection so that they can continue to carry out the activities that are important to them. I'll leave it at that.

However, this time, there's a desire for self-regulation on other issues that people in the cultural sector are generally much more in favour of. Take, for example, the decolonization of art, the fight against discrimination in the art sector. In those cases, they will instead seek to regulate themselves and acquire tools to be able to react, let's say, to these various problems.

[Anju Dhillon, Liberal, Dorval—Lachine—LaSalle, QC]

Okay.

Thank you very much, Mrs. Barraband.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Kevin Waugh]

You actually have another 50 seconds. I forgot that the first round was six minutes.

Go ahead.

[Anju Dhillon, Liberal, Dorval—Lachine—LaSalle, QC]

Perfect.

Do you want to continue to comment on that, or are you just about done?

[Mathilde Barraband]

I think I've covered everything.

Thank you.

[Anju Dhillon, Liberal, Dorval—Lachine—LaSalle, QC]

I found that very interesting.

If you're able to answer this question, could you please talk to us briefly about technology and freedom of expression?

[Mathilde Barraband]

Since the relationship with art is my only specialty, I couldn't talk about anything else.

The connection between artificial intelligence and art is a growing concern in the art community. The issue of intellectual property is obviously very heckled by these issues. The possible replacement of a number of professions with artificial intelligence is also one of the concerns I hear from participants in my studies.

[Anju Dhillon, Liberal, Dorval—Lachine—LaSalle, QC]

Thank you very much, Mrs. Barraband.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Kevin Waugh]

Thank you to both of you.

We'll move to the Bloc and Mr. Champoux for six minutes.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to thank the witnesses for being with us today. I know that the deadline for responding to invitations was very short, and we're grateful to them for making themselves available to be here today.

Mr. Rainville and Mrs. Barraband, it's as if you read my notes before you gave your remarks. You've answered just about all of my questions in five minutes. I must admit I had a lot, but you were concise. You touched on a number of areas of interest that I wanted to discuss with you, but you also opened the door to many other questions.

In terms of artistic freedom and freedom of expression for creators and artists, it seems that we've been going through a kind of crisis for a few years. Let's talk, for example, about SLĀV and Kanata, works vilified by lobby groups that have invoked cultural appropriation, among other things. That's another issue.

How do we go about regulating artistic freedom, creative freedom, without impeding the freedom of expression of those who are affected or offended by the content?

How do we restore artists' confidence in this context so they can create freely? This is an issue.

You said earlier, in your remarks, that some artists have started censoring themselves because they don't want to face this kind of opprobrium.

[Mathilde Barraband]

I find the cases of SLĀV and Kanata very interesting.

The SLĀV show was full of good intentions and was intended to be anti-racist. However, it was heckled by anti-racist groups, who criticized the absence of Black people in the show's cast to sing the songs of African-descent slaves. This implied that singing these songs by white people was problematic and that all the cast could therefore seem problematic in this respect.

What's interesting is that this case caused quite a stir in Quebec circles. There was talk of censorship. I still think it's important to remember that the protesters were exercising their freedom of expression.

I think it's important not to conflate censorship or state control with the exercise of freedom of expression, which may sometimes seem unpleasant to others. In this case, these reticent audiences obviously made the performances unpleasant, but there was no impediment to artistic expression. The problem is that the patrons decided to cancel the performances.

I think we have to look at the real responsibilities of the various players and make people, including patrons, aware of the importance of freedom of expression and the fact that they have a very great responsibility in that freedom. That is why I said earlier that I think it is essential to develop a culture of freedom of expression in general, and of the arts in particular.

Mr. Rainville, do you have anything to add?

[Pierre Rainville]

I think it's essential to recall a teaching made in categorical terms by the majority judges in Ward v. Quebec, a case handed down by the Supreme Court of Canada. The Supreme Court ruled to the majority that “a right not to be offended…has no place in a democratic society.”

I think this is an extremely salutary reminder at a time when people are often trying to impose their point of view.

Of course, there are pressure struggles, even in the artistic community. I was tempted to say “sadly”, but I think I'm going to strike out the word, because that's also normal.

However, we sometimes forget that freedom of expression is both the freedom to express oneself and the freedom to receive.

When a work is heckled and the organizers end up backtracking, the public is also deprived of the work. Therefore, the Kanata case and the SLĀV case are critical; they are symbolically clumsy. In my opinion, the consequences—this is an opinion that isn't binding on my co-chair and that we haven't talked about very specifically—were probably excessive. Again, freedom of expression includes being able to receive information.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

The right not to be offended does not in fact exist. Do you think that it is nonetheless possible to establish a framework for freedom of expression?

We talked earlier about protecting the right to expression, freedom of artistic expression, for example. Do you think it is possible to establish a framework for freedom of expression through various measures, without someone standing up and complaining that the framework actually limits freedom of expression? We often hear an argument that is more conservative, more to the right, which advocates complete openness and no regulation of those frameworks.

Do you think it's possible to arrive at some kind of consensus?

[Pierre Rainville]

The mood is not necessarily favourable to a consensus right now.

It is a risky exercise because, even if we are motivated by good will and want to promote freedom of artistic expression, the very fact of wanting to take legislative action could be very negatively perceived. Quebec has nonetheless been able to do so in the case of academic freedom. It did receive some criticism because its legislation did not fully uphold the breadth of that freedom.

It is not my place to make a judgment on that. The exercise is hypothetically risky, but it would probably make it possible to more firmly establish the importance of journalistic freedom on the one hand, and the distinctiveness of artistic creation on the other.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Kevin Waugh]

Thank you, Mr. Rainville.

We'll go the NDP and Niki Ashton for six minutes, please.

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

Thank you very much.

I'll begin my questions with you, Dr. Ge. It's clear that your story demonstrates society's limit of freedom of expression, especially when it comes to speaking up on Palestine. Looking at the horrors being inflicted on Palestinians in Gaza during the current onslaught by Israel, you called it “apartheid upon Palestinian people” and “settler colonialism”. Then a colleague publicly criticized you and the school suspended you, citing a breach of professional standards.

This didn't come from your patients. This didn't come from anyone you worked with directly. Your suspension meant that projects you were working on, including ones on behalf of the Public Health Agency of Canada, did not continue. This has had a direct negative impact on Canadians.

However, your suspension didn't penalize only you. It also punished the people who rely on you as a medical resident. Due to the fallout from your suspension, the residency program lost its program director and possible threats to its accreditation, the worst possible outcome.

Can you describe how your suspension has had a negative impact on critical work in health care, particularly public health, for Canadians?

[Dr. Yipeng Ge]

Thank you for the question.

Before I was suspended, I was working in public health and also appreciating the structural determinants of health, including the impacts of colonialism here, from Turtle Island to Palestine. When I think about the role that medicine as an institution has played, historically and ongoing, in things like justifying slavery, forced sterilization of indigenous women and nutritional experimentation on indigenous children, these are the realities we face in building trust with our patients who are the most vulnerable and the most structurally oppressed. When that is the work of trying to move anti-racism and health equity forward in this oppressive colonial structure of medicine within Canada, it becomes really challenging to do that work when we're faced with investigations and discipline as health care workers and as physicians working in this space.

On top of that, the suspension I experienced also had chilling effects on my colleagues and other learners and faculty within the institution but also across Canada. I know of a plastic surgeon who served with Médecins Sans Frontières, or MSF, in Gaza in December of last year, who returned to Ottawa to work. She wanted to speak about what she had seen in Gaza, but because she saw my suspension and the impacts of it on me and others—the silencing, the chilling effect of anti-Palestinian racism—she ended up not doing a grand rounds presentation with other colleagues.

This is the reality of freedom of expression for physicians who are simply wanting to call for an end to the genocide that is being supported by this country. We need to be able to criticize the actions of our country and criticize the actions of other countries in their genocidal colonial violence as it continues to this day.

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

Thank you, Dr. Ge.

You talked about the chilling effect and impacts on others. I just want to take it back a step. We know that freedom of expression is critical to a healthy democracy. It is seen as a fundamental right here in Canada, yet your experience proves that Canadians such as you are targeted for speaking out in favour of human rights, in favour of peace and in favour of international law.

You gave the example of this plastic surgeon. Have you connected with others? Have others come to you to speak about how speaking out about Palestine has had negative impacts on their livelihoods or their reputations? What have you heard from others, whether in the medical field or beyond?

[Dr. Yipeng Ge]

Because of my experience, I've had many folks in the medical profession and also in other sectors, including in education, reach out to me to express the levels of silencing and discipline that they have been facing. I've also heard it from public servants and diplomats and people who work within these institutions, who do not feel like they can voice any dissent or any criticism of the Canadian policies related to what's happening and unfolding in Gaza.

When this is the reality, it becomes impossible to find a path forward for peace and justice for Palestinians in the region.

I think it's also really important to recognize that the ways in which it manifests really represent bullying, harassment and intimidation from colleagues who just want to suppress any speech in support of human rights and dignities for Palestine and Palestinians.

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

Thank you, Dr. Ge.

With the remaining moments that I have, I'm wondering if you can share with us what politicians can do to protect the voices of people like yourself, who are speaking out and calling for action to end genocide, for human rights and for peace and justice.