Evidence of meeting #145 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
President, Arab Canadian Lawyers Association
Yes. What is happening is that protected speech—criticizing a state—is being increasingly criminalized or resulting in workplace reprisals, and that is what's causing the chilling effect.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Hedy Fry
Thank you very much.
Thank you, Ms. Ashton.
I now go to the Conservatives for five minutes, please, with Mr. Kurek.
Conservative
Damien Kurek Conservative Battle River—Crowfoot, AB
Thank you, Madam Chair. I will be splitting my time with Mr. Jivani.
Mr. Pardy, a fairly serious accusation was levied against you, and you didn't have a chance to respond. I'd invite you now—and I would give you the opportunity—to speak to that if you wish.
Professor of Law, Queen's University, As an Individual
Thank you.
I don't think there's very much response required. The member accused me of talking about a topic that I didn't talk about at the meeting. I wanted her to quote me the line that she thought was about that, and there isn't one. As far as I'm concerned, she's off the mark.
Conservative
Conservative
Jamil Jivani Conservative Durham, ON
Thank you.
This is also for Mr. Pardy.
The chair of this committee bizarrely suggested that the discussion we were having about the growth of the bureaucracy is irrelevant to Bill C-11, Bill C-18 and Bill C-63. Could you maybe explain, for the benefit of everyone listening, why the conversation about the administrative state is important for these pieces of legislation related to freedom of expression?
Professor of Law, Queen's University, As an Individual
It would be my pleasure.
That's what these three bills do. Bill C-11, Bill C-18 and, in part, Bill C-63 grow the administrative state. They grow the bureaucracy. These bills give powers to administrative bodies, to bureaucrats, to make rules. If you look in the statutes, you don't even know what the rules are. That's what we mean by the expansion of the administrative state.
Our freedom of speech, our freedom to listen to what we want, is now in the hands of a bureaucracy. That bureaucracy is not just enforcing the rules made by Parliament. Parliament, instead, has delegated its authority to that bureaucracy to decide what the rules are going to be. This is what I was alluding to when I talked about the disintegration of the separation of powers and the growth of the administrative state. Our rights are now not in the hands of Parliament, but in the hands of the bureaucrats to whom Parliament has delegated its authority. In this way, and in so many others, your freedom of speech is in peril.
You don't even know what the rules are, because those rules have not been made yet. They'll be made in a back corner, in a back room, and not with the sunlight in the House of Commons, in a debate about what the rules ought to be. Therefore, Bill C-11, Bill C-18 and, to some extent, Bill C-63 are all good illustrations of this trend and of how our rights, including our right to free speech, are being eroded.
Conservative
Jamil Jivani Conservative Durham, ON
Thank you, Mr. Pardy.
I do hope every member of this committee paid close attention to what you said. I thought it was an excellent explanation.
Relatedly, what would you say to Canadians who are concerned about freedom of speech? Why should they be concerned about there being so much power over what Canadians can see, say and hear, and about that being controlled by unelected bureaucrats in Ottawa?
Professor of Law, Queen's University, As an Individual
It means that your rights don't mean anything. It means that your rights are dependent upon decisions made by unelected people who are not accountable to you or to anybody else for that matter. You can't tell where the line is. When you go online or out in the streets and know that you might be punished for something bad that you say, and when you don't know where the line is between hateful and offensive, then that means your speech is chilled. If you live in a country where you have to think twice before you speak because you're concerned about getting into legal trouble, then you know you probably don't live in a free country.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Hedy Fry
There is a minute and 12 seconds left, if anybody wants to pick that up on the Conservative tab. No, you're fine. Okay, that's good.
Then go ahead for five minutes, please, Mr. Noormohamed.
Liberal
Taleeb Noormohamed Liberal Vancouver Granville, BC
I'm following this discussion with a lot of interest. I've listened to Mr. Pardy talk about the risks of limitations on freedom of speech.
Ms. Majid, you've expressed similar concerns in respect of views related to those who have been advocating for the Palestinian cause.
Mr. Pardy, having heard the testimony of Ms. Majid, would you agree with her concerns?
Professor of Law, Queen's University, As an Individual
No. I understand where she's coming from in terms of people being able to speak, but I believe that she's confusing two things. Free speech is a right held against the government. If you are allowed to speak—that is, the laws don't prevent you from speaking—but somebody else hears what you say and acts accordingly—for example, let's say that you lose your job—then that is not a free speech issue, because you don't have a right to free speech against your employer. It has nothing to do with free speech.
People on the left, if I can put it that way, are fond of saying that you have rights, but there are consequences to exercising your choice. This is one of those consequences. If you choose to say something—which you are free to do—and somebody else decides that they don't like what you said, then they are free to respond as well.
NDP
Niki Ashton NDP Churchill—Keewatinook Aski, MB
I'm not sure what the Liberals are doing here, but I have a real issue with trialing one witness's remarks about systemic discrimination with another—
Liberal
Taleeb Noormohamed Liberal Vancouver Granville, BC
I have a point of order, Madam Chair.
This is debate, and actually, I get to ask the questions I want to ask.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Hedy Fry
Mr. Noormohamed, allow me to respond to Ms. Ashton.
Ms. Ashton, that is not a point of order. That's debate, so we shall go ahead.
Mr. Noormohamed, continue with your line of questioning.
Liberal
Taleeb Noormohamed Liberal Vancouver Granville, BC
Thank you, Madam Chair.
If Ms. Ashton had let me finish, which clearly is not what she wanted, I was actually going to ask Ms. Majid to respond, because I think it's really important in these conversations, when we're talking about freedom of expression and freedom of speech, to get to the heart of some of the challenges that people are facing on all sides of political discourse and actually have thoughtful, meaningful conversations.
Mr. Jivani and I may not always agree on things, but I actually enjoy hearing what he has to say because it's important for us to be able to hear each other. If we're going to have a study about freedom of expression, it would be good to be able to hear each other.
I'm going to turn it over to Ms. Majid to respond. I would really like to hear what she has to say, because I think there is some confusion. We need to make it clear how people are able to exercise their rights.
President, Arab Canadian Lawyers Association
I would say it is state interference when police kick down protesters' doors at four o'clock in the morning with tactical units and guns drawn to arrest someone for mischief. We do not see that in any other context. It's strictly because of their activism around Palestine.
We have also seen the Government of Ontario having a hate crimes working group that's not transparent. We don't understand what the relationship is with policing, the Crown and the prosecution of people—protesters—who are arrested. We know that protesters are being arrested. There are upwards of 100 Torontonians who have been arrested for their participation in protests.
The provincial government, again in Ontario, has an attestation policy in its workplaces so it will not hire people—students in particular—who have signed open letters in support of Palestinian rights. It's forcing them to declare whether they have signed or not before they get a job interview or a job offer. I would say that this is state interference.
The trend goes on. There are many examples of where the government has made decisions around Palestinian [Inaudible—Editor]—
Liberal
Taleeb Noormohamed Liberal Vancouver Granville, BC
Thank you, Ms. Majid.
With the last minute, I'd like to turn to Ms. Dufresne.
First of all, thank you for the work that you and Qmunity do in my hometown of Vancouver. It's important work on so many different fronts. Your advocacy is really appreciated. The work that your organization and the community do is really important.
One thing I want to do with the time that we have left is give you the opportunity to speak about the chilling effect on the freedom of expression or people's freedom of speech—particularly when it comes to young people who are dealing with sexual orientation and gender identity—what that does and what it has led to in terms of suicide, mental health issues, addictions and so on.
Can you spend a few minutes just giving us all of the consequences of what we sometimes take for granted?
Director, Legal Services, QMUNITY: BC's Queer, Trans, and Two-Spirit Resource Centre
I think we see, as a result of the promulgation of transphobic and homophobic sentiments, real impacts on trans, queer and non-binary youth, like increased suicidal ideations and increased need for support.
It really gets to the heart of your existence when what you hear and what you experience society's message to be is that everything about you is odious. It really hits at your core, and being able to exist as a full person is very difficult. I think we see that with youth. They're little and it's really hard.