Canadian Heritage Committee on Nov. 25th, 2024

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

I call this meeting to order.

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2) and the motion adopted by the committee on Wednesday, September 18, 2024, the committee is resuming its study on the protection of freedom of expression.

All witnesses have completed the required connection tests in advance of the meeting. I would like to welcome our witnesses.

As individuals, we have Karim Bardeesy, executive director of the Dais at Toronto Metropolitan University; Arnaud Bernadet, associate professor at McGill University; Father Raymond J. de Souza; and Charles Le Blanc, full professor at the department of philosophy at the University of Ottawa. From the National Council of Canadian Muslims, we have Nusaiba Al-Azem, director of legal affairs. From Queer Momentum, we have Fae Johnstone, executive director.

Some witnesses are on video conference. We have two witnesses in the room: Father de Souza and Monsieur Le Blanc.

I'll quickly tell you how we run the show. Each individual has five minutes. If there's more than one person for a group, the group still has five minutes. I will give you a 30-second shout-out, literally. I will say, “30 seconds”, and then you'll have to wrap up. If you didn't finish what you had to say, you can expand on it during the question and answer period, when committee members begin to ask you questions.

I would like to begin with Karim Bardeesy, executive director of the Dais, for five minutes, please.

[Karim Bardeesy, Executive Director, the Dais, Toronto Metropolitan University, As an Individual]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thanks to the committee for undertaking this important study.

My name is Karim Bardeesy. I'm the executive director of the Dais, a policy and leadership think tank at Toronto Metropolitan University looking at the key digital drivers to shared prosperity and citizenship for Canada. In this conversation and throughout the time I'll be drawing a bit on our policy and opinion research that we've done in this space by the Dais and our predecessor of the organization, the leadership lab at Ryerson and TMU, since 2019.

I understand there's particular interest in some of the freedom of expression issues as they pertain to current Canadian legislation before Parliament at the moment, so I'll touch a bit on that, in particular the online harms act, which is before Parliament.

We know that expression on online platforms is bounded by a few things: by the charter, potentially by this prospective piece of legislation, and by the activities of people on the platforms as well as the choices and the algorithms of the platforms themselves.

I've just come back from Washington, D.C., from the Summit on the Future of the Internet, which was brought together by a number of players who are interested in the space. The technology that is moving, that empowers the incumbent platforms, in particular the incumbent social media platforms, to be ever more choiceful about the algorithms and what's being presented to people online continues to get more powerful. However, I think it's really important for this committee to remember that the charter is still the ultimate defender of freedom of expression, and that the online harms act, while being pretty specifically carved out to a few key sets of harms, is still in deference to the charter.

You're probably aware that the online harms act refers to seven categories of harms, with an exemption for private messaging platforms. We think the remedies that are proposed in that bill by and large are the right ones: the tabling of a digital safety plan and take-down provisions for the most egregious harms.

We believe at the Dais and in the civil society community that's following this really closely that freedom of expression can very successfully coexist with this proposed piece of legislation, and that it's important that Canada look to govern the online space appropriately in a targeted fashion while being respectful of our fundamental rights and freedoms. I'll note that Canadian public opinion in favour of action in this space is strong and growing. Some of our research finds that the desire for legislative action to counter deepfakes has increased now to a 68% level in our survey. This is a survey we've done pretty much every year since 2019.

The Canadians who are concerned about what's happening online acknowledge that it's.... Forty-six per cent of Canadians believe that the people who are producing content online are primarily responsible for the content, and 49% of them believe that it's the platforms themselves that have the responsibility to fix the problem. A plurality of Canadians believe that people who are making the content online are responsible for the problem, but a plurality of Canadians believe that it's the platforms themselves that have the responsibility for fixing the problem. That doesn't happen on its own. It happens through the give-and-take, the social licence that these platforms have with their users and with the countries in which they operate, but there's also a potential role for targeted legislation. We believe, at the Dais, based on our research, that the online harms act does a good job, in a targeted way, of dealing with the most egregious harms and of helping to set up a more healthy and safe online ecosystem for everyone.

I gave my presentation in English, but I'm happy to answer questions in English or in French.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you very much.

You did not use up your five minutes. That's great. Thank you.

Now I go to Arnaud Bernadet, associate professor at McGill.

Go ahead, Professor Bernadet.

[Arnaud Bernadet, Associate Professor, McGill University, As an Individual]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Members of the committee, thank you for your invitation.

My name is Arnaud Bernadet, and I'm a professor in the French literature department at McGill University. I'm also a member of the Observatoire sur la liberté d'expression. In recent years, my work, books and articles have focused on freedom of expression and academic freedom, the state of democratic conversation in the face of cultural wars, and the cancel culture.

My remarks will focus on expressive freedoms in academia. On the one hand, it's because of its specificity, since it involves two types of public freedoms—academic freedom and freedom of expression—which are distinct, of course, but also have certain areas of intersection. On the other hand, it's because, over the past 10 years, the university has been a breeding ground for experimenting with what is going on in the rest of society, that is to say a renewal or even a radicalization of cultural wars, from taking down statues to social media to the tragedy at the University of Waterloo, where a stabbing took place in June 2023 during a gender theories class.

I understand how important it is for members of Parliament to consider possible legislative safeguards to protect freedom of expression. Based on my work, it seems to me that what is weakened is a culture of contradiction on which the dynamics of debate are based, in favour of a culture of division. Often demonized, cancelling practices may be less the cause than the symptom. It is important to remember what the action of cancelling represents, particularly for minority groups, who, by definition, have few means of reversing or rebalancing the balance of power in society, often in a symbolic way.

What we're seeing is that, increasingly, scenes of cancelling are based on a triangle between the target who is the subject of the cancelling, the claimant who applies pressure by holding the dominant parties to account, and a third force that comes between the two and that actually carries out the act of cancelling.

In the case of universities, the main culprits are the administrators themselves, who, for reasons of reputation or customer calculations, will give in under pressure, without supporting the faculty. I could give many examples. Think of the Frances Widdowson lectures at the University of Lethbridge that were cancelled or disrupted or the one given by gay lawyer Robert Wintemute at McGill University.

Institutions are increasingly relaying some damaging confusion around freedom of expression to meet the demand of their audiences. This was revealed by the controversy over the “n” word at the University of Ottawa in 2020. In this specific case, there was a failure to distinguish between a word in usage and mention: reflecting on the history of a word or quoting a book title containing a racist term, as we have learned from formal logic and linguistics, is not using that word in the true sense.

However, an even more serious conflation has developed between hate speech, which is a firm limit on freedom of expression, and hurtful or offensive speech. If there was something of a legal nature to be done, it would perhaps be to reaffirm this dividing line between the two types of discourse.

In summary, both in the university and the public space, what is known as cancel culture takes various forms that do not necessarily translate into censorship, which implies the exercise of power. However, it creates, alongside state censorship, which still exists, forms of horizontal, reticular censorship, microaggression mechanisms and even micropowers that rely on non-state authorities, such as university administrators, business executives and social media moderators. This is where the culture of contradiction has perhaps regressed the most.

It would obviously be naive to think that there is no link between vertical and horizontal censorship. As for the “n” word, for example, the continuum is clear between the pressure exerted by the CRTC on Radio-Canada and the pressure exerted by the University of Ottawa administration on a single member of its faculty, precisely in the name of the same confusions and arguments.

Thank you. I am ready to listen and take your questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you, Mr. Bernadet.

I'll go to Father de Souza, please, for five minutes.

[Father Raymond de Souza, As an Individual]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I'm grateful for the invitation to address the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage and to express my esteem for Parliament and those who serve here for the common good.

Freedom of expression enjoys a prominent place in the Canadian Constitution and the fundamental freedoms of the charter. It is listed second, along with freedom of thought, belief, opinion and the press. Only the freedom of conscience and religion has a more important place in the charter.

The charter guarantee prevents governments from restricting expression. The usual way governments might do that is by statute, with citizens then seeking relief in the courts.

I wish to highlight other methods used by governments to limit freedom of expression. These are methods that make it more difficult or even impossible for citizens to seek relief in the courts. This represents a new danger to freedom of expression. I offer three methods.

The first method is the use of the government's spending power. The government might offer a benefit with conditions that limit fundamental freedoms. For example, such was the case with the Canada summer jobs program when initially the federal government program required applicants to attest that they assented to the government's views on abortion. For example, a landscaping business that otherwise took no public policy positions would have to assent to the government's view of Canada's abortion licence. Widespread objection led the government to revise the required attestation in an implicit recognition that the original requirement violated fundamental freedoms in subsections 2(a) and 2(b) of the charter.

A second danger arises from regulatory bodies that have been granted vast powers by the state. For example, professional accreditation and licensing bodies may use their power over citizens' livelihoods to restrict freedom of expression. The Jordan Peterson case has brought this to prominent attention, but the problem is older than his particular case. Medical professionals in particular face restrictions on freedom of expression, as well as other fundamental freedoms, for reasons of ideological conformity, not professional competence. This has been a particular problem in the health care field in relation to euthanasia.

The third way the state might restrict freedom of expression is by establishing and funding institutions that seek to restrict expression. For example, Kimberly Murray, the independent special interlocutor for missing children in unmarked graves and burial sites associated with Indian residential schools, has called for so-called “denialism” regarding burial sites to be subject to government sanction and even criminal penalty. That would include even asking scientific questions.

Having funded the interlocutor, the Attorney General at the time—this was June 2023—the Honourable David Lametti indicated his openness to deploying the criminal law in such manner. That is government directly supporting those who wish to restrict fundamental freedoms—in fact those the government itself set up and funded. It is true that Mr. Lametti was fired from the cabinet soon after that, but I don't think the two things were connected.

Those are three non-statutory ways in which the government could restrict freedom of expression that leave less redress for citizens to go to the courts. I look forward to your questions.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you very much, Father.

I'll go to Mr. Le Blanc from the department of philosophy, University of Ottawa.

You have five minutes, please, Professor.

[Charles Le Blanc, Full Professor, Department of Philosophy, University of Ottawa, As an Individual]

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.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you very much.

From the National Council of Canadian Muslims, Nusaiba Al-Azem, director of legal affairs, you have five minutes, please.

[Nusaiba Al-Azem, Director of Legal Affairs, National Council of Canadian Muslims]

Thank you very much.

Good afternoon. I'd like to thank the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage for the invitation to speak today and for all the important work you do.

My name is Nusaiba Al-Azem. I'm the director of legal affairs at the National Council of Canadian Muslims. I'm pleased to be here today during this important study in this committee on the protection of freedom of expression. The question of this committee in looking at the means for government to protect freedom of expression is a profound one, as it forms our major and main concern around what is, in our view, the most fundamental challenge to free expression in Canada today.

Our submission is quite simple. The most pressing challenge to free expression in Canada has become the wanton use of the notwithstanding clause—that is, section 33 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms—by governments across Canada to derogate from our charter rights, including freedom of expression.

In our view, the overuse of section 33 has become nothing short of a constitutional crisis. We all learned in grade school civics—even I learned in law school—that the usage of the notwithstanding clause, if used improperly to attack fundamental freedoms like section 2 of the charter, would mean the end of that government. I recall my professor using the words “political suicide”. Unfortunately, our grade school civics lessons were wrong. That professor was wrong.

We at NCCM warned of this at what we viewed to be the beginning of this crisis, when we went to court some years ago to challenge Bill 21, for which we currently await leave to the Supreme Court of Canada. Bill 21, of course, to us, remains the enshrinement of stripping away the rights of minorities and the right to free expression and freedom of religion, backed by the notwithstanding clause, to make it so that Muslims, Jews and Sikhs cannot freely express their faith by wearing a turban, a hijab or a kippah and be, for example, a public school teacher. Multiple courts in Quebec have agreed that the ban is discriminatory but is saved by the notwithstanding clause.

While NCCM and the Canadian Civil Liberties Association previously successfully went to court to stop Bill 62, which in some ways was a predecessor and prohibited women wearing a niqab from riding a bus or getting a library card in Quebec, thus far, the notwithstanding clause has become a tool raised by governments in Ontario, Saskatchewan and Quebec as a constitutional get-out-of-jail-free card to evade judicial review. Its use has been threatened in many more provinces as well.

Our recommendation to this committee is the following: that this committee begin a specific study on the appropriate use of the notwithstanding clause. Make no mistake: the very future of our federation is at risk when quasi-emergency powers become normalized in this way.

Our second concern, which we view as a current fundamental risk to the freedom of expression in Canada, relates to the need to protect freedom of expression in this austere House. We support pieces of legislation that have been put forward to better protect freedom of expression, like the Conservative private member's bill, Bill C-257, which would protect against discrimination based on political belief.

We have seen too often attacks on freedom of speech against those who would speak for controversial causes, as somehow support of Palestinian human rights is regarded to be and has been over the last year. We have seen many cases, for example, of people losing their jobs for simply raising public concerns about the Israeli military invasion in Gaza. We have seen a concerted suppression of Palestinian expression and narratives, and we think that's wrong. We recommend that the government explore ways to make sure that the critique of any foreign government, whether that's Israel, China, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Russia or India, is always protected.

I look forward to the questions from committee members. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you very much.

I go finally—but not really finally—to Queer Momentum and Fae Johnstone, executive director.

You have five minutes, please, Ms. Johnstone.

[Fae Johnstone, Executive Director, Queer Momentum]

Thank you so much.

Good afternoon, committee. My name is Fae Johnstone. I am the executive director of Queer Momentum, a national LGBTQI+ advocacy organization. I have dedicated my career to advancing the freedom, rights and overall equality of two-spirit, queer and trans people in Canada. I am grateful for the opportunity to address you today within this study on protecting freedom of expression.

To begin, I would invite members of the committee to reflect on the long and proud history of queer and trans people advocating for freedom, inclusive of freedom of expression. Our legacy as a country includes the criminalization of LGBTQI+ people, the denial of our human and civil rights, inaction from our government during the AIDS crisis, government-led efforts to remove us from the public service, police raids on our establishments, Canadian customs targeting our businesses, censorship of our literature and so much more. We are a community that has been subjected to a horrifying legacy of discrimination, dehumanization, violence and inequality that continues to this day. Those most marginalized in our community are often those whose voices are most silenced.

In my work today, I stand on the shoulders of giants: gay men, lesbians, queer and trans people, and our allies who fought for and won human rights for my community. Because of those advocates, I grew up in a Canada that was more welcoming and more inclusive. The Canada I grew up in filled me with hope. I believed we were on the cusp of something incredible, a Canada where we could shed our age-old hostility toward gender and sexual diversity and where we were ready to embrace a more diverse, inclusive and equitable future not just for queer and trans people but for all Canadians.

In the past five years, I've unfortunately lost that hope. I've seen the resurgence of homophobia and transphobia all across this country as part of a broader global backlash against queer and trans people. Now I am fearful of the trajectory we're headed in. I'm worried that we're headed toward a future where my community's rights and freedoms, including our freedom of expression, and our overall equality will be stripped away in a political era defined by fear, anger and misinformation.

Each year for the past three years, Statistics Canada has reported increases in hate-motivated violence targeting queer and trans people. CSIS has warned that the “anti-gender movement”, a term that describes a range of anti-LGBTQI+ groups, poses a threat of extreme violence in Canada. Across this country, drag performers, LGBTQI+ activists, pride festival organizers and parents of queer and trans kids have been targeted with hate, with death threats, and with other forms of harassment, both online and in real life. Rhetoric that demonizes, dehumanizes and strips dignity away from my community has created a culture of fear among queer and trans people.

As a trans advocate, I have personally experienced the price of speaking out for my community. Last year I was subjected to an international hate and cancel campaign for my inclusion as a transgender woman in a Hershey's Canada International Women's Day ad initiative. My participation in this campaign sparked global backlash. Figureheads of the far-right and anti-LGBTQI+ groups, including individuals like Tucker Carlson, Matt Walsh, Ben Shapiro and others, targeted me. They published my dead name, shared pre-transition photos of me, created and circulated disgusting caricatures, and otherwise directed vitriol my way. The degree of hate and risk to my safety that this backlash unleashed was such that I was accompanied by security guards for six days straight.

Words cannot adequately convey the psychological impact of being targeted by the combined might of hate groups and far-right leaders across the country and around the world. While I am indeed an activist, at the end of the day I am simply a young woman, who happens to be trans, who is speaking out for what she believes is right. What happened to me is unfortunately an extreme example, but it is one of many other examples happening to members of my community all across Canada.

After the Hershey's fiasco, I was invited to be a keynote speaker at a women's rights gala in Regina. Rebel News took issue with my inclusion. This so-called media outlet created an online petition to have me fired, powered by a website called, literally, www.firefae.ca. They also published my dead name in another attempt to shame me.

As if this wasn't enough, days before the gala, a Rebel News reporter found me in a park across the street from my hotel. She made the irresponsible and dangerous decision to publish a video disclosing where I was staying—this after weeks of propagating hate and harassment toward me—and put my safety at immediate and real risk.

Rising anti-LGBTQI+ hate is both morally repugnant and a direct threat to freedom of expression. What happens when you as a queer person or the parent of a trans kid or an ally risk being doxed, personally targeted and subjected to hate and harassment if you speak out for human rights, equality and freedom? What happens when Canadians are unable to express their political opinions or speak out on political issues without significant and potentially safety-compromising repercussions?

What scares me most in Canada today is witnessing hate jump from a social phenomena into mainstream politics.

In the last year we've seen three governments in Canada use misleading slogans and deceptive language to sow division, normalize hate and cue their support for anti-LGBTQ2+ groups. There is no more egregious example than what we're seeing with Premier Scott Moe in Saskatchewan suspending the charter-protected rights of Saskatchewan children to put forward legislation that denies freedom to trans kids.

This divisive rhetoric isn't happening in isolation. It has given cover for these elements of draconian legislation on the provincial level. Beyond the specific impact of the policies themselves, they've created a culture of fear. In many ways, it's akin to the “don't say gay” laws that we're seeing in America, where teachers in classrooms, school administrators and students themselves are afraid to mention, touch on or talk about gender and sexuality.

What happens in a country where, instead of bringing people together, we normalize division and difference, with even the leader of Canada's Conservative Party, Pierre Poilievre, fanning the flames of conspiracy with his allusion to gender ideology?

I don't have all the answers. I'm not a lawyer, but I am a Canadian committed to defending freedom, equality and rights, because they're each dependent on each other. I believe in a Canada where my community is truly free, truly equal and truly safe. That cannot happen when elected officials flirt with hate. 2SLGBTQI+ people, at the end of the day, are human beings, not political props to be maligned and targeted to gain power. I urge us all to reject hate and unite in a shared vision of a better future for all Canadians.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you, Ms. Johnstone.

Now we'll go to the question and answer segment. The first round is a six-minute round.

We'll begin with Kevin Waugh for the Conservatives.

Kevin, you have six minutes.

[Kevin Waugh, Conservative, Saskatoon—Grasswood, SK]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

Thanks to all six of you who have appeared here in committee this afternoon.

Father de Souza, I'm going to start with you.

Your primary concern right now is about challenging freedom of expression in Canada. I'm not going to talk to you about Bill C-11 or Bill C-18 or even the online harms bill. I just want to know your view on this, your concerns on the freedom of expression. You talked about three issues. I'll delve into those in a moment, but, overall, what is your concern?

[Father Raymond de Souza]

I chose three examples. Traditionally, in terms of defending freedom of expression, you have a government statute, and then, if you think the statute is limiting your rights, you can appeal to the courts for relief. The examples I gave are ones that make that more difficult because it's not a statutory act; it's a regulatory thing. It's a spending power. The last example was creating a lobby for restricting freedom of expression.

Some of the other witnesses also addressed things that don't fall under the realm of a government statute, like professional organizations, universities, etc.

That's why I chose to highlight those things. That seems to be where more of the threats to freedom of expression come today. That's why I highlighted those.

[Kevin Waugh, Conservative, Saskatoon—Grasswood, SK]

I think the one you highlighted first was interesting. It was the Canada summer jobs program. This government demanded faith-based organizations sign off on an attestation. In my riding of Saskatoon—Grasswood, I had a number of non-profit organizations that I truly support, and many of them couldn't sign off on the attestation. I give them credit for it. I give them credit because of their moral obligation. They had a moral obligation on this issue. Yes, they could have taken the money. Yes, they could have given Canada's students an opportunity, but many of them did not.

I was very proud of them, to be honest with you. I've dealt with them for many years. Like I said, my first one is non-profits. Non-profits are struggling right now, and they've struggled in the past. When they said, “Thanks, but no thanks,” that spoke a lot about the organizations, if you don't mind my saying.

Perhaps you could comment on that, because you did mention that off the top.

[Father Raymond de Souza]

I did. The example I used was actually not a faith-based group. It would be just a generic landscaping company. Everybody was required to make that attestation in the first instance.

It does touch on, for some, freedom of conscience and religion, as it may have for some of the faith-based groups, but the requirement for that program was that you had to express an opinion. It happened to be an opinion on a specific subject in agreement with the government's policy, but the very fact that you had to express an opinion to qualify is itself a violation of freedom, thought, opinion and belief. That was the problem there.

You're right. It put some groups in the position of having to make a difficult choice. For those that made a principled choice, I would share your view that it required some courage to do so, but they shouldn't have to be in that position.

The difficulty there was that redress against that was very difficult. Had it been a statute, you could have gone to court and maybe gotten an injunction right away. It's possible. We'd have to see whether that was possible. However, when it becomes an attestation and part of the apparatus of the application process, redress was very difficult. There were some court initiatives and then later there was a revision.

If the government had passed a law saying that you had to make that attestation, you could have been in court the next day to seek relief and maybe, if the judge agreed, had some kind of injunction. However, this is a more nebulous requirement and therefore harder to seek redress.

[Kevin Waugh, Conservative, Saskatoon—Grasswood, SK]

There are three major hospitals in the city of Saskatoon.

One is a faith-based, Catholic hospital, which is St. Paul's. They don't believe in MAID. They will not do that. They've been run by the nuns in the past and they're faith based. They're a Catholic hospital. They are a very integral part, I would say, of our city.

I give them credit also on MAID. They spoke out right away. They did not agree with it. There has been some backlash in our city toward them because of their position on this.

What are your thoughts on that?

[Father Raymond de Souza]

I think that would come under the primary freedom outlined in the charter, which is freedom of conscience and religion. Freedom of expression comes in the second part of the fundamental freedom, so I would agree that they should not be coerced against their conscience in that case.

My concern here is actually more in professional associations where what a doctor, physician, nurse, pharmacist or whoever might say is being policed. It's not because of the professional competence of that medical practitioner, but because of the view that, in this case, the professional body might take. That power is given to them by the government, so they hold the livelihood of that professional in their hands.

In fact, in a way, a professional body has more power over it than maybe the provincial government, which has more blunt instruments. To limit your livelihood is a pretty powerful power given to regulatory professional bodies.

As well, when you seek redress against them, it's harder because courts give them more deference—because what they're supposed to be doing is professional regulation—than they would to the government if the government did the same thing.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you.

Now I'll go to the Liberals and Taleeb Noormohamed.

You have six minutes, please.

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

Thank you very much.

I was expecting one of my colleagues to be going. I thought Michael was going first.

[Michael Coteau, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

Yes, I'll go first, Taleeb.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

We have a list that was given to us, so we follow the list. If you change your mind, can you let us know before the meeting begins or before you do that?

Who is going to speak?

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

Dr. Fry, that list was shared by your staff—

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

I know, and we have it written here. The clerk has cited it.