Evidence of meeting #144 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 robertson.
A video is available from Parliament.
Conservative
Conservative
Jacques Gourde Conservative Lévis—Lotbinière, QC
Mr. Robertson, your testimony is really quite interesting.
Would you like to add anything that the committee could include in its report? Would you have a recommendation for us?
Director, Research and Advocacy, B’nai Brith Canada
I'd like to go back to the question posed to me by your colleague about freedom of religion. It's important when exploring the freedom of expression that we appreciate that there needs to be a balancing act. One freedom cannot infringe upon the rights of others. The right to freedom of assembly and freedom of expression cannot be guaranteed in a manner that impacts the right to freedom of religion or to life, liberty and security of a person or other individuals.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Hedy Fry
I now go to the Liberals and Ms. Lattanzio.
Patricia, you have five minutes, please.
Liberal
Patricia Lattanzio Liberal Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC
Thank you, Madam Chair.
My first question will be addressed to the Grand Chief.
Thank you so much for your opening remarks. I was wondering if you could tell us how the indigenous perspectives on freedom of expression enrich the broader Canadian understanding of this fundamental right.
Grand Chief, Keewatin Tribal Council, As an Individual
Our people have always had the opportunity to speak and to be heard. I work with leaders today who, when they come around the table, tell me I need to take this home; I need to talk to our people and see what they think about this. There are so many things our people have to offer that Canadian society can learn from and can benefit from.
Liberal
Patricia Lattanzio Liberal Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC
What measures would you recommend in order to ensure that freedom of expression is protected while, at the same time, safeguarding the indigenous heritage and dignity?
Grand Chief, Keewatin Tribal Council, As an Individual
It's a difficult question that you ask. It's difficult because of what I stated in my introduction. How are you going to protect my freedom of expression if you have a vested interest in upholding the fallacy of Canada's democracy? Democracy is supposed to be a good thing, but it's not, in our experience.
We have the Indian Act that regulates everything that we do.
Liberal
Patricia Lattanzio Liberal Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC
How do you propose that we break down these walls?
Grand Chief, Keewatin Tribal Council, As an Individual
To break down these walls, we have to take a look at the truth. We have to walk in truth. Sometimes it is difficult to do that. Sometimes it's difficult to look at oneself. Today I came here not to make friends. Your opinion of me today is your business; it's not my business. At the same time, I know that in each and every one who is here, you have loved ones who you care for, just as I do. We have the capacity for love. If we walk in truth and share some compassion, I think we can go a long way, but we cannot get there by legislating us away and legislating us into silence.
All of these measures that you have in Canada—the Indian Act, Bill C-31 and others—will not pave a way to reconciliation. In order for there to be reconciliation, we would have had to have a good relationship at some point. In my introduction, I talked about 1670. There was a period of non-interference. Our people lived freely. Your people learned from our people. They learned how to survive in the harsh environments that were here. They learned how to harvest what was available to them. They were after the pelts, and they got those pelts. The company that started that continues to exist today.
Liberal
Patricia Lattanzio Liberal Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC
Madam Chair, I'm going to be moving along to Mr. Robertson.
Mr. Robertson, you spoke extensively in terms of making recommendations for changing, perhaps, the Criminal Code.
Liberal
December 2nd, 2024 / 4:25 p.m.
Liberal
Patricia Lattanzio Liberal Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC
I'm wondering if you have any recommendations on the Canadian Human Rights Act. Do you have any recommendations on changes to be made, or is the way that it is stipulated today sufficient?
Director, Research and Advocacy, B’nai Brith Canada
When it comes to the Canadian Human Rights Act, I think it's the application of the act. It needs to be applied in a manner that coalesces with Canada's anti-racism strategy. When you talk about anti-Semitism and the Canadian Human Rights Act, it must be interpreted in relation to Canada's definition of anti-Semitism, the IHRA definition of anti-Semitism.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Hedy Fry
Thank you very much.
I'm asking the Liberals and the Conservatives if they will allow the final round to be two and a half minutes and two and a half minutes.
Liberal
Bloc
Martin Champoux Bloc Drummond, QC
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I want to come back, with Mr. Robertson, to a subject that Ms. Ashton raised earlier, which is the list of suspected Nazis.
Mr. Robertson, in 1985, Justice Deschênes examined 883 cases. During his inquiry, which, I believe, was done by the book—I hope you'll agree—he found that there were reasonable grounds for a more in‑depth investigation in only 20 cases. That's 20 names out of 883.
Mr. Robertson, I don't see how disclosing those names...
Madam Chair, on a point of order. There's noise on the line. Could you please stop the clock?
Ms. Lattanzio, I don't know if your microphone is on mute, but I'm hearing computer noises.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Hedy Fry
Please check your mics and make sure they're muted. That's especially for the people online.
Thank you.
Bloc
Martin Champoux Bloc Drummond, QC
Madam Chair, I ask that you rewind my clock a little. It was extremely distracting.
Bloc
Martin Champoux Bloc Drummond, QC
Thank you.
Mr. Robertson, I was talking to you about the inquiry by Justice Deschênes in 1985, the conclusions of which were provided to government in 1986. There were 883 cases, and Justice Deschênes determined, after examining the evidence, that only 20 of them merited further investigation, because there may have, in fact, been acts that deserved further investigation as possible war crimes.
Nonetheless, how can disclosing a list of 883 names of individuals who were deemed apparently beyond reproach, for whom no evidence of war crimes was found, do more good than harm to those named on that list and their descendants? I'd like to hear your reasoning.
The last time the committee discussed this issue, I was attacked on social media. I was accused of keeping the secret and protecting the names of Nazis on that list, which I find absolutely abhorrent and disgusting.
Mr. Robertson, I'm asking whether you support that argument or whether you can enlighten me as to how it would benefit people to learn the names of the 883 individuals who were presumably found innocent.
Director, Research and Advocacy, B’nai Brith Canada
I think the rationale can be seen as dual-fold. First, without the release to the public of the Deschênes commission, it's impossible for us to assess the full scope of the information contained within the findings of Justice Deschênes. It's important that we allow for Canadian historians and Canadian academics to have access to this information to further determine the scope of what might be relevant within the information.
However—