Canadian Heritage Committee on Nov. 18th, 2024

[Dr. Emily Laidlaw]

What I will tell you is what I tell city councillors in Calgary. Separately, I am their ethics adviser. I take it from the idea of defamation, which is that you can have whatever opinion you want and you can express that freely; just say the factual basis of it so that anyone hearing it can be in a position to agree or disagree with you.

I mean, that's an ethical question, isn't it? We're asking any elected official to be faithful to facts, to set those out clearly and then express that opinion. I think that's the way forward. There's no oversight mechanism for it, but that's what the goal should be.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Kevin Waugh]

That's right on six minutes.

Thank you, Mr. Noormohamed.

We'll go now to the Bloc.

Mr. Champoux, go ahead for six minutes please.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It's my turn to thank the witnesses for being here today. It's an important study, and I think it's a delicate and sensitive subject that's generating a lot of conversation and questions.

Ms. Dea, you spoke in your opening address about limits to freedom of expression in Quebec universities.

Could you tell me about some specific cases? I'd like you to better define what you were talking about earlier.

[Dr. Shannon Dea]

Are you asking about the limits that occur within academic freedom?

The important thing about academic freedom is that the limits are self-determined by appropriately placed scholars with the appropriate expertise themselves. For instance, I have a department of psychology that is accredited to offer degrees in clinical psychology. It is clinical psychologists across the country who determine what the accreditation standards are. They draw on their scholarship to do so, and then psychology departments across the country respect those accreditation standards in their curricula.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

You talked specifically about cases in Quebec, in your speech. I wanted to know exactly what you were referring to. It's more general, if I understand correctly.

[Dr. Shannon Dea]

Okay. Your question is not about academic freedom per se, but a concern about institutional autonomy.

Yes, in Ontario, Quebec and Alberta, the provinces imposed on universities the requirement to have a particular kind of free speech policy for the university. It was Bill 32 in Quebec. It was non-legislative in Ontario and Alberta.

The limitations there really are limitations on university autonomy. Most universities already have freedom of expression policies. Universities have stronger freedom of expression than perhaps any other institutions in the world, so this external imposition was unnecessary. It was an imposition for the sake of imposition, arguably, which unnecessarily curtailed the university's institutional autonomy.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

I'm going to ask you a question about something that may not be in your area of expertise, but you brought up the subject earlier. You talked about freedom of expression, which has no limits as long as it's exercised within a legal framework. I hope I'm quoting you correctly.

You're absolutely right. Freedom of expression must be exercised within a legal framework, which is generally defined by the Criminal Code.

Do you think it's justified for the state to regulate social media platforms, which are increasingly the vehicle for sharing conversations, knowledge, and the rest, in society?

Do you think that social media platforms should be regulated by law, precisely to ensure that this freedom of expression is guaranteed within a legal framework, i.e., within the framework in which it should be exercised, which is not always the case?

Currently I think we can say it's the wild west in social media in general.

Do you agree that social media platforms need to be regulated, while obviously respecting the fundamental principles of freedom of expression?

[Dr. Shannon Dea]

I would rather refer that question to my colleague, who has appropriate expertise. I don't have expertise in the legal context for social media.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

I imagine you'd like to refer to Ms. Laidlaw at this point.

Ms. Laidlaw, do you have a point of view on this question?

[Dr. Emily Laidlaw]

Yes, when it comes to the social media, I strongly recommend that social media be regulated.

However, let me be clear. There's content regulation whereby the state puts obligations on social media to act on specific content, like a individual post. That's much more complicated and tends to be more ineffective to deal with some of these problems.

That systemic approach I was talking about for Bill C-63 is crucial, and that is the approach being taken by other jurisdictions, like Europe, Australia and the U.K. There's now a global online harms network whereby they're basically trying to create coherence, because these are global companies.

The one thing I want to flag is that it's not necessarily going to address everything to do with something like falsity and some of the challenges we're facing when it comes to more of the misinformation and disinformation space. What is proposed in Canada addresses more the areas of hate speech, terrorist propaganda and incitement to violence. Europe has directly taken on misinformation and disinformation, like election information and discourse. That's really challenging to take on. The role of the government, in trying to improve the general health of the ecosystem in this murkier area, is much more risky and complicated.

I don't want to take up too much time, so I won't dive too deeply into that, but I want to flag that it wouldn't necessarily be solved.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Indeed, Ms. Laidlaw, my time is almost up, but I may have time for one last question. I'll be quick.

You spoke earlier about the damage caused by freedom of expression. It's true that some people are offended by certain comments.

In general, when freedom of expression is exercised within the legal framework, does the damage you were talking about essentially involve sensitivities, individuals' personal values, or is it broader than that?

We can come back to this later, because I don't have much time left. Can you try to give me a quick answer?

[Dr. Emily Laidlaw]

I would say it's larger than that. I mean, there are absolutely—

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Kevin Waugh]

Give a quick answer, please.

[Dr. Emily Laidlaw]

—dimensions to this, which is that people have different sensitivity levels, and that's why we still protect offensive expression and shocking expression. However, there is the issue that there is a generally chilling effect, in particular on more marginalized groups, from even participating in spaces—

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Kevin Waugh]

Thank you, Ms. Laidlaw. We have to move on.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Thank you, Ms. Laidlaw.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Kevin Waugh]

Thank you, Mr. Champoux.

We now welcome Mr. Desjarlais from the New Democratic Party for six minutes.

Away you go for six minutes. Thanks.

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I want to thank my colleagues for undertaking what I believe to be a very important study.

Of course, democracy is only valued if people have a voice and are able to exercise that voice, if people are able to manifest that voice in a way that their counterparts or other Canadians could understand, and if they are able to have tough conversations that democratic societies must ensure they have in order to come to a moral and concrete resolve that makes us, hopefully, more united and able to challenge the credible issues facing Canadians. Part of that is ensuring that people have the ability to speak truth to power. As an indigenous member of Parliament from the Prairies, I particularly feel the importance of this issue.

Several witnesses today have made mention of the critical necessity to challenge some of the very real barriers facing a person's legitimate right to freedom of expression. This was mentioned by the B.C. civil liberties group, for example, which is a champion at the forefront of protecting Canadians' expression rights.

It was mentioned today that there are really two solid groups seeing an extraordinary level of surveillance. Indigenous people, and first nations in particular, are fighting corporate exploitation of their land, whether that's Wet'suwet'en or Fairy Creek. Palestinians are speaking up about their loved ones facing a genocide in Palestine. They need to find ways to express their very legitimate and very deep concerns about how our planet, our earth and our global society are being organized around complicity in that violence.

However, to the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association and Ga Grant, your testimony related to some of the real and severe issues being faced when it comes to the types of repression these organizations face, whether they are indigenous or whether they are part of the Palestinian movement. We're seeing police being utilized in very extreme ways. You had to deal with this. Your organization released an arrest handbook and pocketbook.

Can you talk a bit about why the B.C. civil liberties group needed, or felt they needed, to produce such a handbook?

[Ga Grant]

Thank you.

I wish there wasn't a need for us to have this publication. It is our most widely requested publication, because there is a real power imbalance between individuals and the police, especially when people are members of marginalized and over-policed communities. Those communities tend to be subject to extra and disproportionate surveillance by police and the state.

People need to know their rights. When they don't, it facilitates abuses of power by police. Unfortunately, police frequently do not respect charter rights. They may engage in excessive force or fail to follow court injunction orders or protocol, going beyond what is in their power. We see that happening disproportionately to people who are racialized, indigenous or from other marginalized communities.

In our new version of the arrest handbook, we include new sections for heavily policed communities. One of the biggest challenges in writing this handbook was this: It's a bit messed up to tell people, “These are your rights, but they very well might not be respected by the police. In fact, if you assert or stand up for your rights in this situation, it might make you more unsafe. It may expose you to more danger.”

A major problem we have is that existing mechanisms for police oversight and accountability are not working. They do not provide justice for individuals and communities harmed by policing. To protect everyone's freedom of expression, Canada needs to improve police accountability mechanisms, making them more independent, robust and timely.

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Thank you very much for that.

I have a follow-up, particularly to the last comment you made about the consequences of having your voice heard.

When you challenge power or credible authority, there's often a response that is extraordinary—one that, in fact, limits or suppresses one's right to freedom of expression. In particular, when it comes to students, we saw a severe issue following Israel's intense bombing campaign in Gaza, which left over 40,000 Palestinians killed by Israeli forces. Student-led encampments demanding that their universities divest from companies complicit in funding Israeli-led genocide began emerging right across the country. The B.C. Civil Liberties Association was forced to intervene at the B.C. Supreme Court to defend students whose expression rights were being repressed.

You were involved in that intervention. In your submission, you wrote:

The courts must take account of essential Charter protections for free expression and assembly when issuing injunctions. Students must be able to confidently rely on their Charter rights. Seeking and attaining the truth, as well as participation in social and political decision-making, are at the core of why we protect free expression. Private property is not a magical override for constitutional rights.

Can you please explain to us your experience in this case and how the courts treated the interplay between the expression of rights and property rights?

[Ga Grant]

If you said to the average Canadian, “What does it mean to exercise your charter right to freedom of expression, and when can it be restricted?”, I think people would be shocked to know that we frequently see injunctions being used to restrict protest rights without even considering charter rights, because it's not necessary in that analysis. Because of that, it's become an easy way for corporations and other powerful institutions, including universities—which are funded by the state—to silence freedom of expression and remove protesters without even having charter rights considered.

That is why we intervened in the Vancouver Island University case, and in similar cases before that, arguing that the law needs to adapt to consider charter rights. These are our fundamental rights, and they are so important to our democracy. They're protected in the Constitution. We have principles in law saying that common law and the decisions judges make should align with the charter and its values, because these principles are so integral to our liberal democracy and—

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Kevin Waugh]

Thank you, Ms. Grant. Yes, we're over.

Thank you, Mr. Desjarlais.

We'll move now to the second round for five minutes.

Mr. Jivani, go ahead, please.

[Jamil Jivani, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Ms. Dea, I'd like to start with you.

You know, a lot of Canadians are concerned right now about some of the legislation the federal government has introduced. It's often described as censorious or seeking to organize and centralize more power with the federal bureaucracy in order to determine what Canadians can see and hear online, and consequently what they can say online. I'm thinking of legislation like Bill C-11 and Bill C-18, for example.

I'm curious to know whether you empathize with Canadians who have concerns over that centralization of power here in Ottawa, which can affect how Canadians express themselves across the country.

[Dr. Shannon Dea]

I think that human beings in general are always suspicious of government power—that's a trait we all share—and are inclined to worry about any interventions that might curb their individual freedoms.

I'm not an expert on the communications law that you referred to. Ms. Laidlaw would be a more appropriate expert on that.

It's important to note that while people often feel threatened by government interventions, wise government interventions that are aimed to protect people and to protect their freedoms. I'm not an expert on whether these laws do that or not, but I can certainly sympathize with people's worries.

[Jamil Jivani, Conservative, Durham, ON]

You mentioned in your opening statement some concerns over what you described as authoritarian decisions by governments. I think that a lot of Canadians view what the current Liberal government is doing with this legislation as an authoritarian streak, an attempt to control what Canadians can see and hear online and consequently what they can say.

My question to you would be: Is it legitimate, in your view, for Canadians to have concerns over governments trying to exercise power and control over their expression?