Canadian Heritage Committee on April 27th, 2022

[Daniel Panneton]

In a nutshell—it's a very complicated question—I will point to the historical document of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

You have one minute.

[Daniel Panneton]

That emerged from a Russian forgery. Basically, people responded to it because it provided a very convenient narrative for a lot of the growing pains of modernity. Those conspiracy theories and the general framework that the protocols have promoted continue to exist, whether people realize it or not.

You alluded to George Soros and QAnon. People may not realize that when they say “globalists”, they actually mean a very old anti-Semitic narrative, but that is what they are saying.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Thank you so much.

I will just close my time by saying that I share your view, Mr. Levitt, about IHRA. Can you talk about some of the organizations in Canada—other than the Government of Canada, the Government of Ontario and the Government of Quebec, which have all adopted IHRA—that should be adopting IHRA?

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

You have 21 seconds, Michael.

[Michael Levitt]

That's more than the 15 seconds I got the last time, so I'll consider myself fortunate.

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[Michael Levitt]

We have already addressed the issue of campuses. I think the campus has been a hotbed of anti-Semitism. We have Jewish students who have to become campus warriors, defending their right to wear a kippah or to have a table supporting Israel or to do any of these things. That's out of control.

We know the IHRA definition. We've seen IHRA adopted in university institutions across the U.S. and across the U.K. Again, it's a tool. It's something to be able to help bring clarity. We get a number of cases at the Friends of Simon Wiesenthal Center from parents and students coming in who have faced discrimination, anti-Semitism and racism on campus. The answer from administration is that they're not really sure if it's anti-Semitism or not.

There's a definition. There's a way to deal with this. We need to see that being adopted much more widely across the country.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you, Mr. Levitt.

We will now go to the Bloc Québécois.

Mr. Champoux, you have six minutes.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

I am going to use my six minutes like Mr. Levitt uses 15 seconds and 22 seconds.

I find today's discussion extremely interesting. As Mr. Housefather said a few minutes ago, this could not come at a better time.

I also have to admit I'm having some trouble positioning myself and forming a clear opinion on this issue. On the one hand, I'm extremely shocked when I see hate symbols. In fact, I'd like to draw a parallel with what Mr. Housefather mentioned earlier. During the election campaign last fall, on his Twitter feed I saw photos of absolutely heinous symbols drawn on his election signs. I even reacted, and we had a conversation about it. Like everyone else, I was outraged by those acts.

On the other hand, there's a fine line between us and the sacrosanct principle of free speech. That is why I feel a bit ambivalent about where to stand. It confirms that we're having a very timely discussion today.

Being a rather optimistic person by nature, quite honestly, I always feel that education and dialogue can get us where we need to go. Of course, there are cases where that's absolutely impossible, we know that.

Mr. Marceau, as we've had the opportunity to discuss this together before, I think you know how sensitive I am to it. How do you draw the line to determine what is a hate symbol and what is not?

[Richard Marceau]

First, I want to thank you for your question, Mr. Champoux.

I'm a staunch supporter of free speech. That's the starting point for my positions. One of the key building blocks of a healthy democracy is free speech. I believe that in the public and legal culture of Quebec and Canada, we have more or less come to a very reasonable position. Free speech exists and must be protected. It's in the Quebec and Canadian charters. However, limits can also be placed on it, as long as they're reasonable in a free and democratic society.

This basic principle must guide any discussion of free speech. This isn't the United States, where free speech is all but completely unrestricted. There are actually some restrictions, but the U.S. concept is very different from Quebec and Canadian legal culture. This is also true in Europe, where some countries are as democratic as ours. They also concede that limits can be imposed on the rights and freedoms that are protected.

Some aspects and symbols are very clearly hateful. As Ms. Kirzner-Roberts mentioned earlier, the Nazi swastika is the most striking symbol. In any case, waving that symbol around is a hateful act unless it's done for educational or artistic purposes, such as a play or film. However, when someone brandishes the swastika, the SS symbol, the Hezbollah flag or the Hamas flag, it's not ambiguous. There is no grey area.

In the discussion we must have, the situation is more complex for some symbols, particularly because they change and fashions come and go, as Mr. Panneton said. For some symbols, however, their meaning couldn't be clearer.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

We're really in the heat of a discussion. I totally agree with what you're saying. I just feel like at some point, maybe some groups will come forward and say that a certain symbol is particularly grave to them and it should be banned. I feel like we're going to end up in a never-ending debate over what's acceptable and what's not.

I also have another concern. These days, with debate being polarized, groups tend to be a little more open to certain ideas. We're also seeing associations forming.

I had a discussion earlier with a colleague about an upcoming appearance by a radical—let's call him Mr. Sky—who is known for his antisemitic rhetoric, promoting antisemitism, and denying the Holocaust, among other things. He will be coming as part of a protest against health restrictions. However, the people he's going to meet and talk to are likely at risk of being somewhat influenced by ideas other than the views he puts forward about health restrictions.

Don't you feel that some of these polemicists might be portraying themselves as victims of free speech, and might even brandish the symbols we want to ban on purpose?

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

You have one minute.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

If we banned symbols of hatred, don't you feel we might be adding fuel to the fire when we're trying to do the exact opposite?

[Richard Marceau]

If doing nothing worked, we would know it. However, that's not the case.

In our view, Canada has let this to happen for long enough. It's one of the things that has led to a rise in hatred in Canada. It's not that alone, but it is part of it.

We're saying that things can be done. Banning hate symbols is one of them.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

You have 12 seconds, Richard.

[Richard Marceau]

I'll wrap up quickly, Madam Chair.

I have a full list of recommendations, including an online hate strategy, better training for Crown attorneys and judges, creating hate crime units across the country, and better education.

We could go on for hours about this, Mr. Champoux.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

We could indeed.

[Richard Marceau]

I hope we get a chance to do that.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Unfortunately, I don't have Mr. Levitt's 15 seconds left, but thank you.

[Richard Marceau]

We'll save it for next time.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Oh, you had a little more than that too.

Now we'll go to Peter Julian for the NDP.

Mr. Julian, go ahead, please. You have six minutes.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair; and thanks to all our witnesses.

This is some of the most important testimony we've heard in this Parliament, and we deeply appreciate your coming forward today to speak.

I'm the sponsor of Bill C-229, the banning symbols of hate act. There has been some discussion around the legality or not of putting forward a Nazi-hooked cross, a Nazi flag, a Confederate flag or KKK symbols.

The genesis of the bill, in reaction to the rise in hate that we are seeing, is also the fact that one block from my constituency office, a store was openly selling Nazi paraphernalia—openly selling Nazi flags, Nazi emblems. When the City of New Westminster looked at how it could shut down this open sale and display of this appalling symbol of genocidal hate, the city was told that there are no laws against it.

In terms of other communities in Canada, in Summerland, British Columbia, the mayor was forced to go into a store selling Nazi paraphernalia, this appalling symbol of genocidal hate. The mayor bought the entire stock and burned it, and then the store owner went out and bought more.

To my mind, there is obviously a vacuum that needs to be filled. We have these appalling symbols that are openly displayed, even on Parliament Hill, a few steps away from the Hall of Honour where 40,000 Canadians are commemorated after having given their lives fighting Nazism, including my Uncle Patrick.

I believe this cannot continue.

My question is to Mr. Farber, Mr. Marceau, Ms. Kirzner-Roberts, Mr. Sharma and Mr. Brereton. Do you believe it is time now for Canada to act and follow the lead of other countries where there's a best practice banning these symbols of genocidal hate, of violent racism, of white supremacy, so that we very clearly say that this is illegal in this country, as it is in other countries?

I'll start with Mr. Farber.

[Bernie M. Farber]

Thank you very much.

Let me be very clear: It is absolutely necessary to find laws by which to do this.

There was a question asked by the Bloc Québécois member in relation to trying to understand what hate is. This has already been defined by the Supreme Court of Canada. In the last Whatcott hearing, in which our anti-hate laws were upheld, the justices actually found seven hallmarks of hate. I think Canada has done the best possible job in actually defining hatred and I would urge the clerk of the committee maybe to pass that decision on to the members so that they have a clear understanding of what it is.

This isn't difficult. The emblem of the Nazi hooked cross brings death and pain to those who suffered under it. There are no ifs, ands or buts about it. We have to find ways to do it properly, but as everybody here has said—Mr. Marceau, Mr. Levitt and others—this is another tool in our arsenal. This is the way we move forward. I would urge members to give this very strong consideration.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Mr. Marceau, would you comment?