Thank you, Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Aldag, for coming and presenting on this bill. I understand it originated in the Senate, and it's gone through quite the journey to finally get to this place. You stand, of course, as the House of Commons' sponsor for the bill, so we're pleased to have the opportunity to chat with you about it here today and then, of course, to see it moved forward.
Before asking any questions in public, I want to give notice of tabling a motion. The motion that I am bringing forward for the committee's consideration reads:
That the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage reaffirm its commitment to freedom of speech and denounce the decision by the Peel Regional Schoolboard Libraries to remove thousands of books published before the year 2008 and deemed by the school board to be culturally irrelevant; and call for all removed books to be immediately returned to school libraries.
The reason I am tabling this motion is that there have been many students, many parents and many community members, as well as teachers, who have spoken out with great concern regarding this.
The thing that is of concern is not that some books are being taken off the shelf and there's this replenishment process. That is normal. In this case, though, what the school board has described as its criteria is of great concern, because one of its criteria is whether or not these books are “culturally relevant” or whether or not there is “misinformation” or “misleading” information in these books.
This poses great questions with regard to freedom of speech and freedom of expression. Who gets to be the czar of truth? Who gets to determine what is culturally relevant? It's rather rich, actually, for this school division to think that it can make that Trumpian decision.
Interestingly enough, there was a Japanese student who was willing to be interviewed by the media concerning this. She raised some really good concerns. As a Japanese student, she was curious as to whether or not books having to do with Japanese internment camps would still be preserved, or if those would be removed from the shelf. She wasn't able to find any. For her, that's culturally relevant, but to the Caucasian man who decided to take those books off the shelf, maybe it wasn't relevant.
Who gets to be the czar of what's relevant and what's not? Who gets to determine what is true and what is not?
There is great purpose in protecting freedom of speech and allowing divergent viewpoints to be expressed. The way we do that is by allowing a multitude of books to remain on the shelf and allowing robust debate. That's to say that, yes, there will be conflicting ideas expressed, but that's what allows society to progress. That's what allows one idea to rise against another and new innovation to transpire.
I would ask this committee to consider this motion I am tabling today and to stand together, united in our advocacy for freedom of speech.