Justice Committee on May 9th, 2019

[Randy Boissonnault, Liberal, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Except on the Hill....

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

Here is another from April 10:

...I have always 100% denounced white supremacy and racism and anyone who promotes those hateful ideologies. The Prime Minister also knows that the senator withdrew and clarified his remarks and that I continue to denounce those types of messages.

It is a fundamental tenet of the Conservative Party that equality of opportunity and equality of protection under the law for all Canadians be preserved and protected.

Now for the record, Prime Minister Trudeau hosted a convicted attempted murderer and member of a known extremist group on a government-sponsored trip to India. Prime Minister Trudeau hosted a known al Qaeda sympathizer in the Prime Minister's Office, and without order by court, Prime Minister Trudeau paid the murderer of American medic Christopher Speer over $10 million. I will take the moral leadership of the Honourable Andrew Scheer any day of the week.

Mr. Boissonnault, that type of divisive rhetoric and innuendo is—

[Randy Boissonnault, Liberal, Edmonton Centre, AB]

I'm not a witness here, Mr. Barrett.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

It's Mr. Barrett's time here, not yours, Mr. Boissonnault.

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

Am I not entitled to address my time as I wish?

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

It's your time, Mr. Barrett.

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

Thank you.

Mr. Boissonnault, I'll take the moral leadership of this Prime Minister...and I think it's reprehensible that you're using this opportunity, where we can come together and consult with this broad spectrum of stakeholders and witnesses, who are giving of their time to meet with us, to score cheap political points. It is a disservice to your party and it is a disservice to the spirit of what this committee is trying to do. You should be ashamed, sir.

To the witnesses....

[Randy Boissonnault, Liberal, Edmonton Centre, AB]

I'm not.

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

That speaks to your lack of character and judgment.

Instead of confusing a motion for action—and picking up where you had closed, Mr. Rosenblood—and understanding that at this stage of this Parliament we're unlikely to effect legislative change, what would you see as important recommendations that could come out of this committee?

[Leslie Rosenblood]

There needs to be recognition of how the way Canadians communicate with each other has changed. I think it is appropriate to take a look at a considered approach on how existing legislation might be amended to reflect that. Our concern is that we take a look at the alarming trends, and rather than take a well-thought-out approach that we feel, based on evidence and research, is likely to have the greatest impact to mitigate these harms, we instead take a knee-jerk reaction, an instinctive approach, that will most likely have little to no effect and could very possibly exacerbate the harms we are attempting to reduce or eliminate.

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

Thank you very much.

Deacon Bennett, you had talked about bringing the spectrum of faith groups into the public square. Do you have any examples of where that's done elsewhere or how that could be implemented and how that conversation could be facilitated by government?

[Dr. Andrew P.W. Bennett]

I think it happens currently. There are numerous examples across the country of where different communities come together.

For example, I broadly agreed with what most of my colleagues had to say, but we obviously share very different beliefs. Government needs to ensure that people with very diverse views are able to engage in the public square and to have robust debate, recognizing that if that debate is carried out peacefully and in goodwill, you can have very deep disagreements.

I would agree with my colleagues here that you have to have a broad scope for freedom of expression in the country. There is definitely a red line where that goes into inciting violence and measurable harm against people. There are obviously others who are going to comment on specific legislative changes, but I think government, in the interest of serving the people, has to ensure that all voices can be present in the public square and that you don't push voices to the side. For those who are inciting violence, that's a different story, and obviously there are appropriate punishments for that.

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

Of course.

Thank you.

Dr. Dennis, what steps would you advocate for at this juncture in this Parliament, where we're unlikely to effect substantive legislative change? What recommendation should come out of this committee?

[Dr. Robert Dennis]

I realize you're at a tenuous place in your legislative process. I would underscore, as my colleagues have said, there is a great health to a democratic system when people who have profoundly different views can engage publicly, and that should be protected and respected, of course. The line is, where does free speech end and when does online hate begin? In that sense, I think that the moments when speech, as my case study tried to illustrate, can incite violence need to be legislated against. What you can do in the short time frame you have is of course beyond my expertise, but that needs to be legislated in a broader sense.

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

Thank you very much.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Barrett.

Mr. Fraser.

[Colin Fraser, Liberal, West Nova, NS]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to the witnesses for being here and giving your points of view on this. I would like to start with Mr. Rosenblood and Mr. Oliver.

Can I understand the position of your organization with regard to online speech or online content as it is now on Facebook and on other social media platforms? Do you think there is a problem?

[Greg Oliver, President, Canadian Secular Alliance]

Absolutely. In particular harassment, things like doxing, and misinformation campaigns are real problems that we're facing.

[Colin Fraser, Liberal, West Nova, NS]

What do you mean by doxing?

[Greg Oliver]

That would be the revealing of personal information like addresses and phone numbers to the public against the intended target's permission.

[Colin Fraser, Liberal, West Nova, NS]

Do you think, sir, that there are minority groups who are specifically being targeted and treated unfairly on social media platforms?

[Greg Oliver]

One of our own members was a victim of this when he was promoting the idea of removing public prayers from his city council in Saskatchewan.

[Colin Fraser, Liberal, West Nova, NS]

Do you think there is a role for government to play in combatting what seems to be agreed upon as a rise of intolerance on social media platforms?

[Greg Oliver]

Yes, we do. We just urge caution that any measures taken are done cautiously and judicially, and there's no overreach.

[Colin Fraser, Liberal, West Nova, NS]

When we're dealing with impressionable young people who are using social media platforms and, in their growing into adults, informing themselves about different world views, about different religious philosophies and about different ways to interact with other individuals, do you think there's a role for government to play in order to limit to a certain extent the abilities of individuals who are trying to exploit impressionable young people into certain hateful ideologies?

Do you think there's a role for government to play in order to try to curb that, or do you think it should be unlimited and up to the individuals...?