Canadian Heritage Committee on Dec. 2nd, 2024

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 144 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage.

Before I begin, I would like to ask all participants in the room to look at the decal on your table. It's very important to keep your devices on that decal, so that they don't interfere with the interpreters' ears. Please remember not to take pictures in the room. You can take them after the meeting. The meeting is going to be in a public format.

Please wait until I recognize you by name. Please ask your questions through the chair.

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

This meeting was originally slated to be a two-hour meeting. This is going to be a one-hour meeting.

I want to recognize two witnesses. In the room, from the Keewatin Tribal Council we have Walter Wastesicoot, grand chief. Online, from B’nai Brith Canada, we have Richard Robertson, director of research and advocacy.

Welcome to you both.

The witnesses have five minutes to make a presentation.

We will begin with Grand Chief Walter Wastesicoot, for five minutes, please.

[Walter Wastesicoot, Grand Chief, Keewatin Tribal Council, As an Individual]

Thank you.

My name is Walter Wastesicoot. I am the Grand Chief of the Keewatin Tribal Council. Here is my prepared statement.

In Canada's democracy, there is no freedom as my ancestors lived it. The shackles of Canada's democracy are visible in the scars of oppression that run throughout my body. My living memory does not include the freedom experienced by my ancestors.

Canada's democracy is a fallacy of attractive catchphrases that detract from Canada's racist roots. There is no room for the freedom experienced by my ancestors, as that freedom would mean returning the land and its resources to the first peoples. Canada will remain an immature creature of the English Crown that tolerates the thorns of self-righteous France for as long as it buries the theft of the lands and resources within the doctrine of discovery and prioritizes its lust for God, gold and glory over integrity and fairness.

Freedom is with the animals that are not restrained by legislation, regulation and policies. Freedom is with the vegetation that naturally grows in the spring and rests in the fall. Freedom is with the water that runs as it was meant to from time immemorial. Freedom is not within the democracy of Canada.

I wrote the above statement on November 15, 2022. I shared it with my wife, Dr. Jennie Wastesicoot, who advised me to be careful whom I share it with.

Our experience with Canada's democracy has not been in our best interests. On the contrary, our experience has been as the recipients of Canada's colonial policies of forced relocation from ancestral lands and forced attendance at residential schools, day schools and boarding homes. In short, it's trauma.

I later shared the above piece with a lawyer, who is a partner at his firm, and two parliamentarians, one of whom leads his party while the other has ministerial responsibilities. I told the lawyer about my wife's warning, to which he replied, “What? Why? That should be shared anywhere with whomever because it's the truth.” The parliamentarians used words such as “powerful” and “it is the truth”.

In 1670, 354 years ago, Britain established the Hudson’s Bay Company, which started commercial activity on the ancestral lands of the Ininew of the Hudson Bay region. The land occupied by the Hudson’s Bay Company became known as Rupert’s Land, which was then sold to Canada in 1869 for $1.5 million. Three hundred and eight years ago, the Dene and Ininew of the region made a peace treaty that continues to be recognized to this day.

The early explorers, traders and settlers who followed brought their values, beliefs and institutions with them and collectively drew on the doctrine of discovery to colonize what is now Canada. They brought no land with them. Canada has an assumed jurisdiction on lands that are not from England or France.

What I share with you today is my truth. How are you going to protect my truth and my freedom of expression? I suggest that your educational curricula in this country can be one means. The education or training that immigrants receive with acknowledgement of this truth in their oath of citizenship can be another.

How will you protect my freedom of expression when you have a vested interest in upholding the fallacy of Canada's democracy?

In March 2023, the 11 nations affiliated with the Keewatin Tribal Council declared a regional state of emergency due to a system-wide failure in public safety, health and infrastructure. Of those 11 first nations, nine are remote and isolated. The northern Manitoba first nations are characterized by increasing gang violence, preventable deaths due to lack of access to needed services, misdiagnosis, drug overdose and suicide, a lack of infrastructure for clean drinking water, inadequate housing and no all-season road to the Manitoba network.

The Shamattawa First Nation and the Tataskweyak Cree Nation have had to go to court for clean drinking water. The Northlands First Nation has joined a class action on housing.

Canada's democracy is killing our people. The criminalization of those who walk in their truth to defend their lands and resources must stop. The marginalization of the first peoples must stop. The practice of denialism must stop.

Land acknowledgements are patronizing and meaningless without the action of giving title to the land. When Canada arrives at a point in its growth where title to these lands remains with the original peoples under—

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Can you wrap up, please?

Thank you.

[Walter Wastesicoot]

—a new fiscal regime, as it was in 1670, then Canada will have matured as a nation-state. Perhaps the persistent denialism of my experience—indeed, our collective experience—will inevitably cease.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you very much, Grand Chief.

Now I'm going to move to Richard Robertson of B'nai Brith.

You have five minutes, please.

[Richard Robertson, Director, Research and Advocacy, B’nai Brith Canada]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Good afternoon, distinguished members of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage.

I am Richard Robertson, B'nai Brith Canada's director of research and advocacy. Our organization, which was established in 1875, is dedicated to eradicating racism and hatred in all of its forms and to championing the rights of the marginalized.

In exploring the protection of freedom of expression in Canada, this committee has the capacity to adopt recommendations that will ensure that the charter right to Canadians' freedom of expression is properly balanced and assessed in relation to other competing constitutional and quasi-constitutional rights. Such recommendations would accord with the spirit of the charter, align with the relevant jurisprudence and ensure that the Canadian public is sufficiently protected from new and emerging forms of hate.

Misunderstandings surrounding the limits of the charter freedoms have had a deleterious impact on Canada's Jewish community and have had a significant impact on the rise in anti-Semitic incidents currently plaguing our country.

In response to the unprecedented levels of anti-Semitism compromising the well-being of Canadian Jewry, B'nai Brith Canada recently launched its seven-point plan for combatting anti-Semitism. The relevant provisions of our plan form the basis of our recommendations, which will be further detailed in our forthcoming submission to the committee.

Our first recommendation is that the committee explore how the Criminal Code provisions that sanction hate speech can be amended in a manner that does not unduly infringe upon the constitutionally protected right to freedom of expression in order to broaden the definition of hate speech to include modern forms of online and digital harassment.

Our second recommendation is that the committee explore how the Criminal Code can be amended in a manner that does not unduly infringe upon the constitutionally protected rights of Canadians to outlaw the display of the flags and emblems of listed terror entities. The display of such symbols undermines the efforts of Canadians to combat terrorism, both domestically and internationally.

Our third recommendation is that the committee explore the creation of legislation that creates a national prohibition on all rallies that glorify or promote hate speech, violence and extremism that is promulgated by listed terrorist entities, and that this legislation be adopted without compromising the constitutionally protected rights of Canadians. Such a prohibition would prevent the occurrence of rallies such as Al-Quds Day, an annual event that celebrates the actions of listed terror entities aligned with the Islamic regime in Iran. Such an event has no place in a society that values diversity, tolerance and the safety of all its citizens.

Freedoms are not absolute. The rights and freedoms enshrined in our charter were not designed to be absolute. Their existence should not prevent the federal government from amending or creating legislation to combat terrorism and to protect its citizens from racism and hatred. The existence of a rights regime that grants a right to freedom of expression cannot be utilized as a justification to sanction the dissemination of hate and the willful promotion and glorification of terror. Allowing this conflicts directly with the human rights and competing charter interests of the Canadians who suffer from such a callous interpretation and wanton abuse of our fundamental freedoms.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you very much.

Now I'm going to go to the question and answer portion of the meeting. The first round is going to be a six-minute round, and the six minutes includes questions and answers.

Because we only have a one-hour meeting, I would ask my colleagues around the table to please try to not do too much of a speech so that we can get through the questions.

I'll begin with Mr. Kurek for the Conservatives.

You have six minutes, please, Damien.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

Thank you to our witnesses.

Mr. Robertson, I have been astounded to see some of the rallies and whatnot that you referenced in your opening remarks, where there is the glorification of terror on Canadian streets. Something that has been highlighted, especially as we're dealing with a study on freedom of expression—of course, as Canadians we are guaranteed through the charter the constitutionally assured right to freedom of expression—is ensuring that this does not include the glorification of genocide, of terrorism, that we have seen.

Is it your opinion that mechanisms, Criminal Code and otherwise, that currently exist in Canada are not being properly enforced to ensure that these things don't happen on Canadian streets?

[Richard Robertson]

It is the position of B'nai Brith Canada that the unfortunate rise in anti-Semitism and such recent events as protests that glorify and celebrate acts of terror, as we have seen on our streets, present us with the opportunity to re-examine the provisions of the Criminal Code that have been designed to prevent terrorism. These Criminal Code provisions need to be amended to ensure that the groups we are listing as terrorist entities are not celebrated and glorified on Canadian streets.

Yes, we do have provisions designed to prevent terrorism and its occurrence here in Canada, but we need to amend those to acknowledge the realities that we are currently seeing on Canadian streets—the display of the symbols of listed terror entities and the occurrence of rallies and vigils whose sole intent is to glorify the actions of terrorists. The existing legislation does not presently encapsulate the events we're seeing. It needs to be amended in order to respond to the problematic conduct we are witnessing on our streets, which is actually making a mockery of our current efforts to combat terrorism.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

I appreciate that. I've had many constituents who have reached out to me to ask: How is this allowed to happen? Are there not anti-hate speech provisions that currently exist? Are there not Criminal Code charges that could be levied against individuals, the organizers of these sorts of rallies, who clearly are hateful and are calling for, in some cases, genocide and so on?

Are you aware of whether or not charges have in fact been levied or brought against any of the organizers or groups, including some organizations that, up until recently, were allowed to operate legally in Canada but just changed to be a terrorist organization? Are you aware of any of the current provisions that have led to charges that we could point to?

[Richard Robertson]

We are aware of arrests that have been made specifically in reference to the leaders of the group you referenced. We are also aware of charges being laid against several individuals under section 319 of the Criminal Code, Canada's hate crime provisions. However, I think the evolving situation is evidence that what has been done and the charges that have been laid are insufficient to handle the situation that is currently being inflicted on our country.

Whether or not it's through the creation of additional Criminal Code measures or whether or not it's through the examination of additional measures that will aid in the use of the currently existing measures, something needs to be done. That's why this study, this committee's role, is so integral. Something more needs to occur. It's up to our parliamentarians to decide what is best in order to combat the rising levels of hate and the current unrest and division plaguing our streets.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Thank you for that.

I'm curious; in any civil society, there's a social contract, and that's a concept that is often taught in high school social studies classes and in universities across Canada, but there's this tension between freedom and also responsibility. I'm wondering if in my last minute or so you could unpack a little bit of what that tension should look like for us as parliamentarians, members of the heritage committee studying freedom of expression, to ensure that freedom of expression is protected and that Canadians are also protected.

[Richard Robertson]

I think it comes down to reasonable limitations. Everyone should have the right to protest. Everyone should have the right to voice our opinion. That's made clear in our charter, and our charter jurisprudence has protected those rights.

However, on the glorification of listed terror entities and the promotion of caustic views that discriminate against and promote hate against other minorities, that seems to run afoul of the idea of what is reasonable within our democratic society and would seem to violate the social contract you have referenced.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you very much.

You have 13 seconds.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

I would simply add that this could be expanded as well to ensure Canadians have the right to freedom of religion, and what that looks like in terms of the larger context, but since I'm out of time, maybe you'll have a chance to expand on that as the discussion goes on.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you very much.

Now I go to the Liberals and Anna Gainey for six minutes, please.

[Anna Gainey, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Westmount, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you to both of our witnesses for being here today.

Mr. Robertson, I think I'll pick up a little bit on where my colleague was just a few moments ago, just noting that today the government registered the Houthis as a terrorist entity.

Do you have any more thoughts on what further steps the government can take to ensure this designation leads to meaningful consequences to prevent the celebration of terrorism?

[Richard Robertson]

I'd like to point to recommendation number two and recommendation number three from my opening statement. The listing of groups such as the Houthis is compromised if individuals are allowed to display the emblems of that group and the flag of that group without consequences. The listing of the Houthis is compromised if individuals are allowed to hold rallies and vigils that support the Houthis, that advance their ideology and that glorify their actions.

It's about taking our legislation, which enables the listing of groups that we deem to be evil and diabolical and that constitute a threat to Canadian security, and ameliorating it by ensuring that in Canada the promotion of these groups in the ways we've seen—through the display of emblems, the display of flags and the holding of vigils in protests designed to glorify the actions of terrorists—is outlawed.

[Anna Gainey, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Westmount, QC]

I'm wondering, because you mentioned your seven-point plan, if that's something you could submit to the committee in writing, perhaps after the meeting, just so we have that in its full form. That would be helpful for us.

Could we talk for a minute about the online harms bill? It seems to align with the IHRA principles to combat hate online.

How do you see this legislation balancing the need to address anti-Semitism and online hate with ensuring that the platforms also remain spaces for free expression?

[Richard Robertson]

B'nai B'rith will be submitting a submission to the committee in advance of the deadline. Our seven-point plan will be contained within our submission.

In response to your query regarding the online harms bill, any legislation that is passed to combat online harms must confront the reality facing the Jewish community here in Canada—but other Canadian communities as well—which is that our digital space has become a toxic cesspool, for lack of a better term, which is enabling the promotion of hate online.

It is integral that any balancing act between freedom of expression and other competing constitutional and quasi-constitutional rights take into account this new sphere, which I consider to be the Wild West. We need legislation in place that will protect against the spread and dissemination of hate online.

[Anna Gainey, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Westmount, QC]

Thank you. I agree with that.

Just looking back a bit on some of the commitments this government has made in terms of a heavy investment in funding a new Holocaust museum in my hometown of Montreal and the appointment of a special envoy on the preservation of Holocaust remembrance, combatting anti-Semitism and other roles, how do you see those sorts of commitments on the part of the government as contributing both to balancing the freedom of expression and to addressing the sharp rise in anti-Semitism and hate that we've seen more widely, in particular over the last year?

[Richard Robertson]

Certainly, they are noble efforts; however, the numbers speak for themselves. We are falling short as a society in our efforts to combat anti-Semitism. Anti-Semitism continues to be on the rise across the country.

More is needed: It's as simple as can be. We're seeing that we have a problem. We must continue to address it. We need stronger measures. We need measures that don't just contribute to education, such as the Holocaust museums. We need concrete measures that will outlaw and criminalize the actions of those who wish to spread hate, whether it's in person or online.

[Anna Gainey, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Westmount, QC]

I assume you've been following some of the discussions around the legislation, which perhaps was inspired by the bubble legislation during the pandemic, with regard to health care spaces to allow health care workers to come and go freely from their places of work. This idea of bubble legislation has come up regarding community spaces as well, whether they be mosques or synagogues, in terms of trying to prevent what we saw, for example, in my neighbourhood around the Shaar the other night and the kind of protest that was there.

Does B'nai Brith have thoughts on that type of legislation, whether that would be effective, or potentially, on the pitfalls there with the tension around freedom of expression as well?

[Richard Robertson]

B'nai Brith is open to any remedy that will help to protect the rights of Canadians, including their right to freedom of religion, to access their religious institutions without threat of violence, coercion or intimidation. However, going specifically back to the Shaar instance, there was an injunction in place, and there was a legal measure preventing the obstruction of entry into the Shaar, but that was insufficient. Therefore, bubble legislation, or similar legislation, is just one avenue that we need to explore. We need to take a “full-court press”, to use the term, in our efforts to combat anti-Semitism.

[Anna Gainey, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Westmount, QC]

Thank you very much.