Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
Honourable members, thank you for the invitation to appear before you today.
I must admit that I find it rather surprising that, in a country like Canada, with an excellent Constitution, a Charter of Rights and Freedoms and an authoritative tradition of jurisprudence, we had to address the issue of freedom of expression today and in recent years. It should be a no-brainer, so it seems to me that the first question we should be asking ourselves is, why do we need to look at something like this today? What's changed in this country that makes freedom of expression a problem? That's the first question that I think is philosophically important.
I'll highlight two things, since my time is quite short.
The first is the confusion between freedom of expression and freedom of conscience. This question might seem a little trivial if it had not been asked at the highest levels of government, such as the Prime Minister and the Minister of Foreign Affairs, who said after the unfortunate Bedford school case in Quebec, that this was an issue of freedom of expression. On the contrary, it was freedom of conscience, but never freedom of expression. Never once have Muslim teachers who have somehow taken over a school in Quebec done so in the name of freedom of expression. No, they did so on the basis of their somewhat particular idea of what freedom of conscience is.
We all have freedom of conscience, which is the foundation of freedom of expression. Our freedom of conscience is everything that seems important to us. These are our convictions, our opinions, our diverse beliefs, and that's fine. The problem arises when we have to express and make public what is in the private domain: beliefs. That's where the difficulties are going to arise.
It should be noted that freedom of conscience isn't infinite, either; in its external expression, it knows limits. In fact, none of us in this room could say that we won't pay our taxes in the spring, because that goes against our freedom of conscience.
So it seemed to me that there is confusion, which is often found, between the freedom to believe what you want and the freedom to say whatever you want. It's the confusion between freedom of expression and freedom of conscience. I think that's something that needs to be revisited.
The second element is academic freedom. I think that freedom was addressed before this committee by one of my colleagues at the University of Regina in a way that created a bit of confusion. I don't want to criticize another witness who appeared before me, but we still need to show a little rigour.
Professors' academic freedom—I took a few little notes—is subject to an administrative neutrality in terms of professors' fields of research. It involves the independence of professors in choosing their research subjects, as well as an unfettered expression of their ideas. Furthermore, it doesn't depend on colleagues. If my colleagues in my department feel that my research in philosophy or literature isn't valid, it's not for them to judge. I'm the one who, by doing research that may not make sense, will ultimately be set aside by the scientific community. So this isn't at all the same as submitting an article for peer review of its quality.
I would like to make one last brief point and then I will stop. Today, we saw an article in La Presse talking about the academic freedom of CEGEP teachers. Again, there is confusion. In my opinion, CEGEP teachers do not have academic freedom, but rather pedagogical autonomy. They must follow a program enacted by the state, Quebec in this case. However, given their pedagogical autonomy and based on their skills and personalities, teachers can make the program more interesting.
That's about it. I look forward to your questions. Thank you, ladies and gentlemen.