Evidence of meeting #150 for Justice and Human Rights in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was online.
A recording is available from Parliament.
10:10 a.m.
Conservative
Michael Cooper Conservative St. Albert—Edmonton, AB
That's right.
You touched on big tech and big government. I think we've seen some steps that have been taken in Europe by the European Commission. I would suggest there is a real issue of censorship creep with some of those steps taken. You touched on it, but you didn't have an opportunity to elaborate, so I'd be interested in your thoughts on big tech and big government coming together and the dangers in that.
10:10 a.m.
Barrister and Solicitor, Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms
Yes, it's not a myth that big tech is censoring views that it disagrees with. Two days ago, Democratic representative Tulsi Gabbard, the representative for Hawaii, appeared on the Joe Rogan show. She voiced opposition to the censorship of Facebook users, arguing instead that “companies like Facebook have betrayed the longstanding American commitment to free expression by ousting unpopular political commentary from their platforms.”
Just listen to those words, what she's saying. She's saying that unpopular political commentary is what is being ousted; not hate, but simply stuff that the censors at Google and Facebook disagree with. Because they have the power and little oversight, they do whatever they want.
It's a dangerous proposition for a government to consider and to propose teaming up with these institutions and entities that are already engaged in gross censorship that is well documented. We'll be submitting a paper about that, but it's well established at this point. Google, as well, is routing search results away from certain media outlets and conservative voices that it disagrees with. It's routing traffic away from those entities, and that's unacceptable.
10:10 a.m.
Conservative
Michael Cooper Conservative St. Albert—Edmonton, AB
In that vein, we've seen examples from Antifa, for example, which has expressly incited violence. Social media platforms have refused to take that content down, so we see the inconsistency.
In 2016, the European Commission entered into an agreement with YouTube, Facebook, Twitter and Microsoft, wherein those platforms agreed to take down content that constituted hateful conduct or violent extremism—which, I would submit, are relatively vague terms—within a 24-hour time frame.
Should we be concerned about ordering social media platforms to take down content within 24 hours? It seems to me there's not a lot of time for deliberation. Should we also be concerned when state actors make requests for social media platforms to take down certain content, given the fact that state actors might have their own agendas?
10:10 a.m.
Barrister and Solicitor, Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms
Absolutely. Twitter is notorious for this type of thing. There's a movie that has come out called Unplanned, a true story about a director of Planned Parenthood. There was a U.S. Senate hearing at which a co-producer of the movie testified about how Google had refused to take their ad dollars. Twitter took down their account and deleted hundreds of thousands of followers from the Unplanned movie.
We have the same problem in Canada, where theatres are refusing to screen the movie. Despite all of the questionable content that is in the theatre, they are refusing to show this true story, essentially censoring it for the public. Whether you agree with pro-life positions or not, that should still concern you as Canadians.
Twitter is bizarre. It permanently banned Meghan Murphy for the crime of misgendering. She's not a conservative; she's quite far left on the feminist side of the spectrum. Twitter takes down accounts like this. I went looking for something on Twitter and accidentally stumbled onto a page with this guy's penis in front of this woman's face. You can have all of this stuff on Twitter, but if you want to talk about conservative viewpoints or things that Jack Dorsey disagrees with at Twitter, Twitter takes them down. It's such a double standard and it should, quite frankly, offend more of the people in government than it does.
10:15 a.m.
Liberal
10:15 a.m.
Liberal
Ali Ehsassi Liberal Willowdale, ON
You mentioned in your opening remarks that you were somewhat insulted that there was no mention of the Constitution in the motion we're examining here. Is that a correct—
10:15 a.m.
Barrister and Solicitor, Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms
No, I didn't say I was insulted. I said that the starting point for the conversation needs to be paragraph 2(b) of the charter, because it protects the fundamental rights that the Supreme Court of Canada has said are the foundation of Canada's liberal democracy. It can't function without freedom of expression. The context of this conversation needs to be paragraph 2(b) at the start. I'm not offended, though, sir.
10:15 a.m.
Liberal
Ali Ehsassi Liberal Willowdale, ON
Surely, you understand that in adopting any recommendations, we would obviously be well aware of paragraph 2(b) of the Constitution. Is that correct?
10:15 a.m.
Barrister and Solicitor, Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms
Sir, I'm not sure of that at all. This government's track record regarding paragraph 2(b) of the charter is not good. There was the Canada summer jobs fiasco in 2018, in which people were compelled to make—
10:15 a.m.
Liberal
Ali Ehsassi Liberal Willowdale, ON
No, but you understand, obviously, that members of this committee are mindful of that.
10:15 a.m.
Barrister and Solicitor, Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms
I understand that people should be mindful of it, but as to whether or not this government takes paragraph 2(b) seriously, I'm not convinced of that at all, no.
10:15 a.m.
Liberal
Ali Ehsassi Liberal Willowdale, ON
You were sitting here. You had the opportunity to listen to the previous witnesses. What were your thoughts on some of their concerns?
10:15 a.m.
Barrister and Solicitor, Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms
The representative from Egale made an excellent point about the dangers of attempting to take down speech and to fine ISPs for content. That's a legitimate concern. People in Canada have a right not to be subjected to criminal hatred, so insofar as those concerns are based on the incitement of criminal hatred, I think they are legitimate and I support the prosecution of the incitement of violence or genocide against identifiable groups of people.
The problem is that a lot of the concerns being expressed are couched in vagaries and—
10:15 a.m.
Liberal
Ali Ehsassi Liberal Willowdale, ON
You constantly cite cases that you find to be extreme, but obviously you would agree with us that there is a public interest in making sure that hatred does not spread. You would agree with that objective, would you not?
10:15 a.m.
Barrister and Solicitor, Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms
I think that for me to agree with that, you would have to define what hatred is. How are you defining it? If you're defining it like some of these witnesses, then no, I don't think the government legitimately has an objective.
10:15 a.m.
Liberal
Ali Ehsassi Liberal Willowdale, ON
You heard from the witnesses that some of the witnesses had to deal with sexism on Facebook, correct?
10:15 a.m.
Barrister and Solicitor, Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms
Is sexism hate? Has that been established? I don't know that it has been, sir. Is sexism arguing against a woman's legal right to have an abortion because somebody has a perspective that's different than that?
10:15 a.m.
Liberal
Ali Ehsassi Liberal Willowdale, ON
No, but those weren't the examples that were provided. You were sitting here, but that didn't concern you in the least.
10:15 a.m.
Barrister and Solicitor, Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms
Please don't put words in my mouth. I'm not here to argue.
10:15 a.m.
Liberal
10:15 a.m.
Barrister and Solicitor, Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms
I'm giving you direct answers. I don't know that it has been established that sexism, which is not defined for the purposes of this committee, is hate. If you're telling me that it is, then I think what we need to establish is what you mean by sexism and establish parameters.
10:15 a.m.
Liberal
Ali Ehsassi Liberal Willowdale, ON
Would you not agree that they did face sexism, the previous witnesses who were before us?
10:15 a.m.
Barrister and Solicitor, Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms
Which witnesses are you speaking of?
10:15 a.m.
Liberal
Ali Ehsassi Liberal Willowdale, ON
It was one of the mayors who showed up and I refer to the examples she provided.
May 16th, 2019 / 10:15 a.m.
Barrister and Solicitor, Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms
Did she personally experience sexism?
