I'll just go, Madam Chair.
Evidence of meeting #141 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 rights.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Evidence of meeting #141 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 rights.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Hedy Fry
We will not argue. If you are speaking now, it's not Mr. Noormohamed. It's you, Mr. Coteau.
Liberal
Michael Coteau Liberal Don Valley East, ON
I want to thank all of our witnesses for being here today.
We have many different opinions, and a great thing about our country is that we have the ability to express our different opinions and bring different perspectives. I think that's what makes this country a great country.
If you go to any of the lists of different freedoms and liberties and comparators across the globe, Canada always seems to land in the top, I would say, 3% to 4% of countries when it comes to liberty and freedom. I've always thought of Canada as a place where one can express themselves without worrying about repercussions. However, I do agree with Professor Le Blanc that something has changed in our country over the last decade, maybe the last 15 years.
What has changed in this country, and why are we here today having this conversation about the ability to express ourselves? What has changed?
I'll start with Mr. Bernadet.
Associate Professor, McGill University, As an Individual
Thank you.
What's changed? That's a very broad and complex issue. I would say that there are phenomena that we're familiar with and that are sometimes described as polarization or sometimes radicalization, which is another thing. Clearly, there's a growing trend towards polarization, which is probably, first of all, due to an import of the paradigm of the American democratic model and its influence. American society is very polarized right now. We saw it recently during the election. I think there's this strong influence effect and the fact that the United States is—let's face it—a sort of laboratory for liberal democracies in the rest of the world. Exporting their model more or less is part of their ability to convince. I think there's an effect of that kind.
That said, we also need to put these phenomena into perspective. There's a lot of talk about cultural wars, which are the subject of much debate. The media are the first to relay this machine of tension or antagonism, with the idea that there are identities that are irreducibly opposed to each other. These media tend to feed off each other, sometimes even going so far as to blame social media for this reality, even though they themselves cultivate or maintain it. I think that's the effect.
The third point is that there are indeed ideological trends unfolding. We see this in the practices of cancel culture that is present and that we see emerging at universities. It's important to remember that cancel culture takes very heterogeneous forms, but that its basis is a struggle over values. From that perspective, it's a legacy of culture wars. For minority groups or groups that want to advocate for a given cause, this struggle over values doesn't mean a power grab, but at least it's a way of asserting these values on a symbolic level. In some cases, we know that this can lead to gag orders.
As I was saying, the problem is often that the people who cancel something aren't necessarily the activists. In the case of certain cultural shows, such as Kanata and SLĀV, which were presented in Montreal, it wasn't the activists who took the action to cancel. Activists exercised their right of expression by challenging the fact that Black and indigenous characters weren't being played by Black and indigenous people. Whether you agree with it or not is another matter, but it was actually the organizers of the show who ended up cancelling it. So it's quite complex from that perspective.
I don't know if I'm answering your question, but these are some avenues.
Liberal
Michael Coteau Liberal Don Valley East, ON
Thank you so much.
Mr. Bardeesy, Karim, do you want to take a shot at that question? What has caused this change for us to even have this conversation today?
Executive Director, the Dais, Toronto Metropolitan University, As an Individual
I want to pick up on Professor Bernadet's commentary.
It's really the power of these social media platforms to target and to identify issues that resonate with people's identities or their choice of identities and serve them content that appeals to their in-group, their identity in-group, or has them serving information, serving content, that targets an identity out-group. I think it's really important to understand that the information ecosystem, the way in which we consume information, has changed so significantly.
Most Canadians are more likely to cite a social media channel rather than a non-social media channel as their main source of news these days. That's just a phenomenon that we didn't see even five or 10 years ago. Those social media channels are personalized and are serving content that is intended to speak often to one's identity or one's choice of identities, and the identities, again, of people in the in-group and the out-group. That reduces the shared space we have for shared conversations, for shared information and for shared reasonable political debate.
Liberal
Michael Coteau Liberal Don Valley East, ON
Ms. Al-Azem, thank you so much for bringing attention to this group around Bill 21. I actually—
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Hedy Fry
I'll go to the Bloc Québécois and Martin Champoux.
You have six minutes, Martin.
Bloc
Martin Champoux Bloc Drummond, QC
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Mr. Le Blanc, earlier, my colleague Michael Coteau asked the question I wanted to ask you and Professor Bernadet: What has changed and why are we here today discussing this issue?
Full Professor, Department of Philosophy, University of Ottawa, As an Individual
It's all of us as Canadians, as citizens of a pluralistic democratic country, who are retreating, who are afraid, who show little courage. I'll just use the example of the University of Ottawa and my president as an absolute example of lack of courage. I think that's the main reason. It's that we're moving backwards and are prepared to make concessions on words, first of all. As soon as we make concessions on words, then we're going to make concessions on things, on concepts, because words don't mean nothing. Words carry meaning. A word alone is a definition. It takes on its meaning in a sentence.
When we dance around the word beginning with the letter “n”, there's no one in the room right now who doesn't know what word the letter “n” refers to. To me, it's nothing more than hypocrisy. I absolutely agree that the word has a racist connotation. I agree that we must be mindful not to hurt others. However, as Albert Camus said, when you name something wrongly, you add to the world's misery. We start by retreating on things like words. It starts with something as simple as a word we won't say. Then, it's a concept that we won't confront. Then it's a course we won't teach. That's what happens after that. Then there's a professor who says that he is thinking of taking a sabbatical this session because he needs rest and doesn't want to be in constant confrontation.
So what has changed is us. At some point, all we have to do is put our fists on the table and not back down. I taught a philosophy course that covered big philosophical questions. These big philosophical questions—
Bloc
Martin Champoux Bloc Drummond, QC
Mr. Le Blanc, give me a moment, please.
Madam Chair, it's very difficult to focus. I'm having trouble hearing the witness's answers because I'm hearing conversations in the room. Would it be possible, please, to ask people to respect the witness who is speaking?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Hedy Fry
Committee members, if you have to speak about something, can you please go into a far corner of the room? It's not fair to disturb the testimony of witnesses.
Thank you.
Full Professor, Department of Philosophy, University of Ottawa, As an Individual
It's okay. I'm sorry if that bothered you. As a university professor, you will understand that I am used to these things.
Full Professor, Department of Philosophy, University of Ottawa, As an Individual
I was saying that I have a philosophy course on big philosophical questions, and I change the philosophical question every year.
I raised the issue of God's existence and gave authors like Holbach and Lucretius, authors who are atheists, coming to the conclusion that God does not exist. I taught that. I had students who were diverse—to use a buzzword—and it went very well. There were no problems, because students are intelligent enough to be able to distinguish between concepts being taught and an ideology being pushed. I refused to back down. I could just as easily have used my course on the great philosophical questions to talk about issues that had nothing to do with anything, and kept my head down.
Bloc
Martin Champoux Bloc Drummond, QC
Mr. Le Blanc and Mr. Bernadet, you mentioned some criticism of institutional administrators.
Mr. Bernadet, you mentioned earlier that the directors are to blame. We just heard Mr. Le Blanc talk about fear, about the fear that teachers probably have of being censored in a certain way. Perhaps we're becoming more apprehensive about the topics we want to discuss with students. The administration of universities and educational institutions also has an important role to play here, and Mr. Le Blanc highlighted the case of Ms. Lieutenant‑Duval and the lack of vigour in her defence by the president, Mr. Frémont. Is that something you see in general on your side too?
Associate Professor, McGill University, As an Individual
Yes, this is the general trend in universities and administrations. Some deny it, but indulge in the practice quite extensively.
I'll give you a simple example, that of Frances Widdowson, who was supposed to give a lecture on the culture of awakening, I believe, at the University of Lethbridge and had to deal with 700 students. At the outset, the rector, Michael Mahon, made it clear that there could be disturbing ideas in lectures on which we could totally disagree. He made a clear distinction, which I mentioned earlier, between speech that propagates hatred or may cause harm—that's what's in the Criminal Code—and offensive or hurtful speech that you don't necessarily want to hear. I can easily understand that. However, two days later, just as the protests were gathering momentum, along with protests from certain colleagues, Mr. Mahon finally relented. Sometimes you can cancel a conference for security reasons, but in this case, that wasn't the case at all.
That's the trend we're seeing. The problem is that universities are places where you can't guarantee the safety of ideas. We have an obligation to ensure the physical safety of individuals, that's true, but it's a place where ideas clash. This ties in with what Mr. Le Blanc was saying. There are ideas that are unpleasant, but it's impossible to ensure safety on the level of emotions or ideas.
The great tendency, which is linked to the managerial, neo-liberal and client-centred logic of administrators, is to accede to the demands of a group that is not necessarily in the majority and that may be on the fringe of the student public. This undermines the foundation—
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Hedy Fry
Professor Bernadet, we have run out of time.
I'm going to the New Democrats and Lindsay Mathyssen, please, for six minutes.
Lindsay, welcome.
Lindsay Mathyssen NDP London—Fanshawe, ON
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I appreciate being given the time at this committee.
I want to get right into the fact that in this conversation about freedom of expression and the protection of it, I think we need to be very careful about the legal limits to the freedom of expression and ensure that it doesn't devolve into hate speech.
Ms. Johnstone, you were very specific and very clear in terms of what's occurred, what you've seen and the dangers that have existed for you because of who you are and how you identify and the dangers that have evolved because of a great deal of extremism and hate speech coming forward. Ms. Al-Azem, you have been an incredible spokesperson in our community after the terrorist attack that happened to our London family. I know that has come with a great consequence in many cases as well because of the dangers and the violence that both of you have seen.
You both mentioned the use of dog whistle politics and politicians using that against people in minorities and vulnerable people. You both mentioned the use of the notwithstanding clause and the dangers of its use by politicians. I'd love to hear both of you talk about the impacts and the dangers of that and either Islamophobia being used for political gain or the attacks on transgender people and LGBTQ2+ folks and what that means for the impacts on both those groups.
Ms. Johnstone, you can go first, and then Ms. Al-Azem.
Executive Director, Queer Momentum
I think it ties into the previous question. We're in an era of polarization when Canadians are having a harder time paying their bills, making ends meet and supporting their families. When you have that environment where life is harder, it becomes easier to channel that anger and to take advantage of that anger to gain power.
In Canada right now, we're seeing this language around so-called parental rights and this reference to gender ideology. We're using these as a distraction instead of delivering on healthy schools and happy kids and happy families. We are trying to restrict the rights of some and create a false equivalence. This is not about parents versus kids. It's about creating a school environment where all kids have the freedom to be themselves, are treated with dignity and are raised in healthy communities.
When we see politicians engaging with this divisive rhetoric, it cues to that playground bully that they can do the same. It encourages people to walk up to and sometimes cross that line. We've seen that across Canada with the rise of anti-2SLGBTQI+ hate.
In particular, the pre-emptive use of the notwithstanding clause gives me great concern. In Saskatchewan, prior to allowing a court to review and look at the policies of Premier Moe, we saw this clause used. It means that one of the few checks and balances on government is now overridden. It creates an environment where, again, we're not able to have conversations that are nuanced and that require expert input on the best interests of kids and the best interests of families. It becomes a whack-a-mole or a sledgehammer, using a slogan to ramp through legislation and policies that restrict the freedom of trans kids and their families.
I think every day about the kid who isn't fortunate to be safe at home, who has their one space where they are to be themselves, their school, taken away by a government that is pretending to be invested in the well-being of families but is really cueing their support of an anti-2SLGBTQ lobby that wants to take my rights away and force my community back into the closet.
Thank you.
Director of Legal Affairs, National Council of Canadian Muslims
The question is on impacts, so I'll answer it in two parts: first, the impact of the law, Bill 21, and then the impact of the notwithstanding clause.
To give us context about what we're talking about, we have a law that says that Muslims, Jews and Sikhs who wear religious symbols cannot become teachers in Quebec. That's the law. The impact of this was explained both in court and in a study that followed our court appearance. A report found that one in five Muslim women in Quebec has experienced physical threats or aggression at work, and 54% of Quebec Muslim women have heard racist or prejudicial remarks about their religious identity from their colleagues at work compared to 9% of the general population.
When we were in court, the court heard from many witnesses as to the harms they endured. Women teacher candidates, most of them Muslim, lost their jobs and vocations, and an aspiring Crown prosecutor had their plans derailed. I know of people on personal levels who have been impacted by the bill. Individuals expressed concern about their financial security and fears for the future of their children. Many Muslim women described increasing incidents of verbal and physical harassment against them in public spaces. One woman, overcome with emotion, simply wept on the stand as she described how it felt to be excluded from a society that she had once seen as a model of acceptance. That's when we were talking about the impact of Bill 21.
When we talk about the impact of the notwithstanding clause, it's clear in just looking at how readily other provinces are now to either use or threaten the use of this clause to pass populist legislation. Wielding this power in this way threatens the very fabric of our rights, reducing them from inalienable, fundamental human rights to mere permissions that are granted and taken away on a whim. That's on the impact.
I'll leave it at that.
NDP
Lindsay Mathyssen NDP London—Fanshawe, ON
There's been a lot of work done on anti-Palestinian racism and how that's fallen into this idea, this rubric, around hate speech and challenging the norms.
Ms. Al-Azem, you specifically referenced that in your testimony, those fired from jobs because of it.
Could you give some further examples of that and the dangers of what that has meant over the past year? Can you talk about Palestinian suppression as well?