Procedure and House Affairs Committee on April 16th, 2026

[John Carpay]

Thank you very much for the question.

I don't see them as opposites. I think multiculturalism can work well, as long as there is a foundation. It's like a mosaic that needs glue to hold the little pieces of glass together. Multiculturalism can work well if people think the law is fair, because the law applies equally to everyone. You would not tell someone that their ancestors came here much later than someone else's ancestors. If there are legal distinctions, people will feel that there is a lack of justice. It will undermine solidarity.

For example, the agreements with the Musqueam in Vancouver are not bringing people together. There are people who bought a house, and now it's not clear whether they can keep the house that they've paid a lot of money for. There's a minority of people who can potentially, probably, benefit from that. It is dividing people. It doesn't help with reconciliation.

[The Chair, Liberal, Chris Bittle]

Thank you so much.

We'll go to Mr. Van Popta for five minutes, please.

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley Township—Fraser Heights, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to all of the witnesses.

Mr. Carpay, I have a question for you.

I'm looking at a briefing note that we have from the Library of Parliament, prepared by our very capable analysts, which I thank them for. In it, they cite some Statistics Canada information about the degree of confidence that Canadians have in several of our important democratic institutions, one of them being our criminal justice system. Apparently only 48.2% of Canadians have confidence in our criminal justice system, which seems pretty startling to me.

I don't know if you have a comment about that. I know you're legally trained. You talked about the rule of law, equality and race-based policies. You have race-based sentencing, and we have, not to be partisan, what we call catch-and-release bail rules. Now we also have sentencing based on a person's immigration status.

We're talking about civic resilience, keeping in mind that's the purpose of my question.

[John Carpay]

There's been a lot of media coverage in recent months of some very high-profile cases. I'm not going to describe them or elaborate on them, but these are cases in which the judge has expressly written into his judgment that a person would have received a much harsher sentence or deserves a harsher sentence, but we had this special report—I'm sorry, I forget the name of it—so this person gets a lighter sentence because he's Black or because he's aboriginal.

That, I think, rubs the vast majority of Canadians the wrong way and creates, again, conflict and division between people, because there's this sense of unfairness and favouritism.

We have to remember as well that long before the Gladue decision of the Supreme Court of Canada, which was in respect of special sentencing considerations for aboriginals, judges have always had discretion to take note of the accused person and if they had a horrible childhood, abusive alcoholic parents or a horrible youth and didn't have opportunities or guidance, etc.

The judge already had and still has the jurisdiction to take that into account. In my view, it was a mistake, though well intentioned. Everybody has good intentions. I don't question that, but to say we need special sentencing considerations for aboriginals is not necessary; it's divisive. That special consideration was already in place long before Gladue or the current policies.

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley Township—Fraser Heights, BC]

Thank you for that.

I want to tie this back to the study of the day, which is civic resilience. I think it is a disturbing stat that more than half of Canadians don't have confidence in this important democratic institution.

What does that do to our sense of community and our sense of civic resilience? I know these policies are well intentioned, but maybe they don't work out the way they were intended.

[John Carpay]

Your question has expressed my point. I don't question that the EDI initiatives are intended to help people who are disadvantaged, who have a harder time in life and who have conditions beyond their control that make it harder to get ahead, etc.

I completely understand that EDI initiatives are well intentioned. I also think they are counterproductive, because they make it harder to have unity, say, between men and women, between gay and straight people and between dark-skinned and light-skinned people. That common humanity.... If you're always emphasizing that you belong to a victims group or you're in an oppressor group, that is so counterproductive to getting along and respecting each other.

Again, these initiatives have good intentions, but I think they're destructive and toxic, and they undermine social trust between people.

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley Township—Fraser Heights, BC]

I have 50 seconds for Professor Charlebois.

I read that editorial—it was in Canadian Grocer, I think—very recently. You say a healthy food economy depends on a strong middle class. I find it somewhat ironic that after 10 years of the government that wanted to enhance the middle class, which even had a ministry of middle-class prosperity, you talked about the Canadian economy and how things are going in the wrong direction.

Could you comment on what a prosperous middle class, or a lack thereof, does to the sense of civic resilience in our country?

[Sylvain Charlebois]

It affects us all, because the top 20% is still buying beef at plus 15% and lamb at plus 8%. They'll buy caviar, crab and lobster, pushing prices higher and penalizing the people who actually are trying to make ends meet. They're dealing with the same inflation.

[The Chair, Liberal, Chris Bittle]

We'll have to move on to Madame Brière.

You have five minutes.

[Élisabeth Brière, Liberal, Sherbrooke, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

First of all, thank you all for your testimony.

Ms. Leonard, you mentioned a $20 million Canadian fund that could be set up.

Which sector do you think would need the most support?

What weaknesses could that funding address?

[Niamh Leonard]

Thank you for your question.

In my opinion, the scope of the funding has yet to be determined. We could include a lot of things.

In terms of the current funding from the federal government, which includes the digital citizen initiative, the local journalism initiative and other initiatives, the missing pillar involves civic engagement.

We have to ensure that people are closer to institutions, and that institutions are closer to the people. We have to be able to inform people about how institutions work. We need to make sure that people show up to vote and that their voices are heard.

In my opinion, the real weakness is in the organizations that make that connection. We must nonetheless continue to strengthen other important things, including issues related to journalism.

[Élisabeth Brière, Liberal, Sherbrooke, QC]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Charlebois, you often question the credibility of the media. You say that it is compromised by public funding, even though that represents a small portion of their funding.

What would you say about your credibility as a university professor if you're entirely publicly funded?

[Sylvain Charlebois]

I don't have a problem with publicly funded media. I have to correct you. The newspaper La Presse, which terminated my work with it, made $9 million, and it received more than $15 million in grants. It also benefited from tax credits. That is not insignificant.

As an academic and researcher, I sense there has been some influence. I've been working with the media for 25 years, and I've noticed a difference in the past three or four years.

I have no problem with public funding. I'm a big supporter of Radio-Canada/CBC. For privately owned media, however, we know very well that this is a partisan issue now. We can see that.

[Élisabeth Brière, Liberal, Sherbrooke, QC]

Thank you.

I'll give the rest of my time to the committee chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Chris Bittle]

I would like to use my discretion as chair to ask a few questions.

I'll start with you, Professor Charlebois.

It sounds like your argument with respect to media is that if you had 300 experts on one side saying one thing and one expert on the other side saying the other thing, it should be reported the same way as two sides of the same coin.

Are you trying to tell us that is the reason you're being excluded from the media?

[Sylvain Charlebois]

I'm not being excluded at all.

[The Chair, Liberal, Chris Bittle]

I see you a lot. That's why I'm surprised you're here saying that you can't get into one newspaper but you're in every other newspaper across the country.

Are you telling us that La Presse should not have the freedom to include or not include who it would like?

[Sylvain Charlebois]

They absolutely should. It's just the reason they used to dismiss me was troubling to me. That's why—

[The Chair, Liberal, Chris Bittle]

Okay.

I suppose it would be troubling to all of us if we were dismissed.

Mr. Charlebois, I looked through your university website just to confirm you are well studied in food and food security and whatnot. Compared to the other academics who have been here, would it be fair to say you have not done research in civic resilience?

[Sylvain Charlebois]

It's fair. I'm not an expert in civic resilience. Absolutely.

[The Chair, Liberal, Chris Bittle]

Thank you so much.

[Grant Jackson, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair. I'm just curious. We've had a number of witnesses over many days of study on this. I'm not sure I've seen the chair question the expertise of any other witness.

I'm just wondering why that's happening.

[The Chair, Liberal, Chris Bittle]

That sounds like debate. It's not a point of order.

Mr. Carpay, with respect to your comments on inclusion and diversity, and I can understand where you're coming from, is that why you compared the pride flag to the swastika?

[John Carpay]

Well, you need to get your facts straight on that, with respect. I made a point, and I'll make it again today, that any flag and any symbol can be used to attack rights and freedoms. You can violate human rights under the Canadian flag, the American flag, the Israeli flag, etc.

[The Chair, Liberal, Chris Bittle]

Is that a yes?