Evidence of meeting #138 for Canadian Heritage in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was academic.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Litigation Staff Counsel, British Columbia Civil Liberties Association
The BCCLA supports the rights of protesters as long as it's not hate speech. Hate speech is criminal.
Calling for the freedom of any people is calling for freedom. Sure, there can be different interpretations, but in our perspective, if people said, “Free indigenous people in Canada,” it doesn't mean they're going to kill the rest of us.
Bloc
Martin Champoux Bloc Drummond, QC
Given that, at many demonstrations, we've clearly heard extremely hateful and extremely violent slogans, I think we do indeed have to balance things in that regard.
I have a quick question for you again, Ms. Grant. Do you think that the security of other groups in society who are affected by conflicts in the world today should take precedence?
Let's talk directly about the conflict between Israel and Hamas. Do you think the safety of other groups involved should take precedence over the right of demonstrators to assemble? I'll give you the example of what happened at Concordia University, where Jewish students were really assailed. Some were literally pushed around by people who were probably still in the energy and state of mind of the previous day's demonstrations.
Do you think people's safety should take precedence over freedom of expression in such a case?
Litigation Staff Counsel, British Columbia Civil Liberties Association
I'm not sure of the specific example you're referring to, but overall, the Palestine solidarity protests have been overwhelmingly peaceful in Canada. There have been very few examples of actual conflicts—
Litigation Staff Counsel, British Columbia Civil Liberties Association
—and there is a proportionate police response that can happen to ensure people's safety. No one is disagreeing with that.
Martin Champoux Bloc Drummond, QC
Ms. Grant, I was talking to you about very specific events, and I think that, if you follow current events and follow them so passionately, these are events that can't be foreign to you. Nevertheless, I thank you for the answer you tried to give me.
I've finished, Mr. Chair.
Conservative
The Vice-Chair Conservative Kevin Waugh
Thank you, Mr. Champoux.
We'll move to Mr. Desjarlais for two and a half minutes. Fire away.
NDP
Blake Desjarlais NDP Edmonton Griesbach, AB
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
I again want to thank my colleagues for undertaking this important work.
Thank you to the witnesses for supplying what I believe to be very good expert testimony that will definitely surely assist our analysts in the production of a very good report.
I want to focus and spend time now on a situation that arises from my experience, my direct lived experience in a community.
In Edmonton Griesbach, I represent a great many concerned citizens who both exercise their freedom of expression rights and are also attempting to balance that with a very important need to bring in more people to a larger discussion. Any democratic society would hope to see that: to see an idea flourish to become a popular opinion and then, hopefully, see that become good, moral and sound policy.
What I've heard from my constituents, and what I think I hear right across the country, is that activists are feeling very nervous. They're feeling like they're walking on eggshells. We have Palestinian families that are crying out “injustice”, and they need to be seen. It's only Canadian to look to our neighbours and to support them in any way and in every best way that we can.
Allies, progressive Jewish people across our country, right now are asking for nuance and for the ability for us to be able to hold two things at once: the very needed and important pursuit of justice for all people while also ensuring that we balance our democratic mission and our right to freedom of expression.
I have heard from my constituents who were student activists engaged in the encampment at the University of Alberta and who got beaten. They showed me the scars, the bruises and the wounds they had endured for just simply speaking truth to power. Whether it was Palestinian families or organizations like the cultural Palestinian association of Canada, which is headquartered in Edmonton, they're seeing reports of people being targeted in their regular workplaces, being left and being terminated for simply speaking truth to power.
Now, Ga Grant, you probably heard the testimony given by Dr. Ge. You mentioned Dr. Ge. He mentioned that he faced attacks. He believes that those attacks were a direct influence on other people deciding to not speak up. Do you think that's the nature of why the police are cracking down on so much of this and that it may be the motivator behind anti-Palestinian racism?
Litigation Staff Counsel, British Columbia Civil Liberties Association
I do, because policing reflects the systemic inequalities we have in our society and maintains those systems of oppression.
Globally mis-characterizing Palestine solidarity as terrorism or as hate is part of the trend we are seeing. It's known and documented as anti-Palestinian racism and as “the Palestine exception” to freedom of expression.
When policing in Canada is responding disproportionately—because no one's saying that policing can't respond proportionately—
Conservative
The Vice-Chair Conservative Kevin Waugh
Thank you, Ms. Grant. I have to move on. We're over.
We have two five-minute rounds left, and then we're going to take a break.
The five-minute rounds will go to the Conservatives and the Liberals.
We'll go to Mr. Kurek for five minutes, please.
Conservative
Damien Kurek Conservative Battle River—Crowfoot, AB
Thank you very much, Chair.
I appreciate the testimony offered here today.
Certainly I find it fascinating that the Liberals would try to make an issue of the fact that for, I don't know, five weeks now, they've refused to release documents, which is delaying government business from taking place in the House of Commons. Wouldn't it be simple if they would just offer a basic level of accountability?
Ms. Laidlaw, I have a question that I hope you can shed some light on. When it comes to where government is and the power the government wields, especially in terms of regulation, you mentioned in your opening statement about—I forget exactly—shadows in regard to algorithms and the lack of transparency that exists. Certainly I hear often a lack of trust from Canadians when it comes to algorithms and when it comes to government's involvement in that.
Do you share concerns that whether it's Bill C-11 or Bill C-18, there seems to be a consolidation of the ability for government to get involved in what Canadians see online? If so, could you outline a little bit what those concerns are with regard to Bill C-11 and Bill C-18 and anything else the government is proposing that would send a chill about Canadians' guaranteed rights to freedom of expression and freedom of speech?
Associate Professor and Canada Research Chair in Cybersecurity Law, University of Calgary, As an Individual
Thank you for the question.
The answer is somewhat complicated, which is that one of the reasons we have the charter right to freedom of expression is to protect us also from government overreach. I think the complicating factor is that how we enjoy freedom of expression—the right to seek, receive and impart information—is happening more and more through different sources and through private parties.
We've always had laws in those spaces, both to protect freedom of expression and to protect us from harm. In the area of technology law, Canada is woefully behind other jurisdictions on all fronts. In my opinion, we do need laws, because for the issues of technology accountability, algorithmic regulation and protection of users, we do require laws, but the type of law matters. For there to be some nervousness about what government is doing and how they do it, absolutely, we should be nervous about that.
I was not supportive of Bill C-11 and the social media rules, but I am when it comes to Bill C-63. I think it depends on the law.
Conservative
Damien Kurek Conservative Battle River—Crowfoot, AB
If I could interrupt, as time is short, one of the things about Bill C-63 that I find really concerning is we have in Canada right now a very objective measure of what hate speech is. I've heard from constituents who look at what the government has proposed and say that it now becomes very objective, that “offence” becomes one of the new metrics by which whether something is or is not hate speech can be measured.
When it comes to the subjective nature of what somebody feels is offensive, I'll use an example. I support the Canadian oil and gas sector. There are Liberals who have called that opinion something that is offensive and filled with hate. While I struggle to grasp that, we may share differences in opinions on that matter.
Do you find the subjective nature by which the Liberals are proposing amendments to hate speech legislation of concern, in that it could be weaponized against specific groups in this country if there's no longer that objective measure and it becomes subjective, based on somebody's opinions or, quite frankly, their feelings?
Associate Professor and Canada Research Chair in Cybersecurity Law, University of Calgary, As an Individual
Yes, and I think that it's always been hard when it comes to hate speech, because the tendency is for people to look at other values and say, “Oh, well, I approve of freedom of expression when it comes to what I think.”
I will say this: I think there are some significant problems with parts 2 and 3 in Bill C-63 that do need to be addressed. The definition of hate, though, does draw from Supreme Court jurisprudence. I'd encourage everyone to read the paragraphs, because the paragraphs are actually more thorough and do set out quite a high threshold.
Could there still be problems in interpretation and application? Absolutely, because it's so contextual, but it is drawing from case law, so it is drawing from a legal framework.
Conservative
The Vice-Chair Conservative Kevin Waugh
Thank you.
We'll move now to the Liberals.
Ms. Dhillon, you have five minutes, please.
Liberal
Anju Dhillon Liberal Dorval—Lachine—LaSalle, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you to our witnesses for being here.
Ms. Dea, first of all, it looks like our Conservative colleagues now have a problem with libraries. Before you were cut off, you were talking about how important it is to get independent news from Canadian sources and how you can go to a library to do that. Can you please finish your thoughts on Canadians being able to get news that is more Canadian-centric from a library, to use their own brains, and to use their own analytical skills, I think, to know what's what?
Dean, Faculty of Arts, University of Regina, As an Individual
My concern isn't about Canadian-centric news; it's about news researched by journalists who are trained to seek truth.
Citizen journalism, even when well intentioned, can be a source of misinformation. When it is ill intentioned, it can be a source of disinformation. We need trained journalists in the journalism sector, both in Canada and internationally, in order to get the truths to citizens.
Journalism doesn't happen for free. The sector needs to be able to profit enough that it can hire those trained journalists and run their operations. Over the years, the sharing of journalistic content by third party providers without any compensation to the journalism sources themselves has crippled the journalism sector and made it very, very difficult for that truth seeking to occur. There needs to be some kind of compensation for the experts who are actually out there sourcing the news and helping us to be well-informed citizens.
Liberal
Anju Dhillon Liberal Dorval—Lachine—LaSalle, QC
Thank you so much for clarifying that about trained journalists. These are huge topics, with all the changes that are happening on social media. WhatsApp is now being used as a news source. A lot of our news is being affected by foreign interference. This is just a whole other ball game.
Can you please—just quickly, because I have another question—do a survol? Thank you so much.
Dean, Faculty of Arts, University of Regina, As an Individual
Thank you.
Dr. Brian McQuinn, a colleague at my university, specifically researches the use of social media for political polarization that leads to violence and conflict. It is very real. Social media is increasingly becoming a mechanism for violence and conflict.
Liberal
Anju Dhillon Liberal Dorval—Lachine—LaSalle, QC
Thank you so much.
We have our Conservative colleagues talking about so-called government censorship and blaming everything on Justin Trudeau. This is a huge part of the problem for him now, being attacked the way he is.
Regarding the so-called censorship they're talking about, I have a quote for you. Maybe you can tell me what kind of freedom of expression this is. Is this freedom of expression? It's very vulgar, but I'm sure you'll understand: “You could start by effing off to whatever shithole your parents came from, back to the streets your mom and dad sucked D on to make money to come to this great country and give birth to a POS [bad woman part] like you.”
These are messages that I and my colleagues are getting. What do you think of this freedom of expression?
Dean, Faculty of Arts, University of Regina, As an Individual
I would defer to Ms. Laidlaw. Intuitively, to me, that sounds like it borders on hate speech, but I'm not a legal expert. That's only my opinion.
Liberal
Anju Dhillon Liberal Dorval—Lachine—LaSalle, QC
Do you think such words and such attacks are permissible? Do you not think the whole purpose of our online harms legislation is to protect people who are vulnerable?
Dean, Faculty of Arts, University of Regina, As an Individual
If such expression is lawful, then it is legally permissible, but that doesn't make it morally permissible. That's a separate matter. What you have just described is immoral. Whether it's illegal or not is a question for lawyers.
Liberal