Evidence of meeting #154 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 ideas.

A video is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Clerk of the Committee  Mr. Marc-Olivier Girard
Lindsay Shepherd  As an Individual
John Robson  As an Individual
Mark Steyn  As an Individual

9:35 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather

Mr. Garrison.

9:35 a.m.

As an Individual

Dr. John Robson

May I respond?

9:35 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather

While I appreciate it, he made a statement and I asked her because she was referenced in the statement.

I'm sure you'll have—

9:35 a.m.

As an Individual

Dr. John Robson

He did ask the question to all the witnesses.

9:35 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather

Oh, was that on the Criminal Code?

9:35 a.m.

As an Individual

Dr. John Robson

Yes. Though I am not here to debate specifics, I want to say that inasmuch as laws that censor speech are fundamentally illegitimate, it is not appropriate to figure out what the best way is to do a bad thing.

On the other hand, I talked earlier about how the Internet is awash in rubbish. I run a website that is actually skeptical about man-made climate change. People are forever saying, “We're going to report you as fake news and get you shut down.”

The other day, somebody put a comment on our blog which said, and I quote, “Canada's Environment Minister, Catherine McKenna (aka Climate Barbie), in typical Nazi like screeching manner declared” blah, blah, blah, and at the end it said, “Joseph Goebbels would be proud.” Of course I deleted that comment as soon as I saw it, because as it is a private matter and not a governmental matter, we are under no obligation to tolerate this kind of rubbish when it appears. I have reproached people for using that nickname for our environment minister. I think it is disrespectful. I think it is mean-spirited. I think it is harmful to speaker and to audience alike. Man is not poisoned by what goes in his mouth but by what comes out of it.

When this is a private matter, we refuse to associate with these kinds of things. When this is a public matter, it is not your place to silence us, even if we want to say something like the Quran does not separate church and state, and this is a serious problem in political economy.

9:40 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather

Thank you very much.

Mr. Garrison.

9:40 a.m.

NDP

Randall Garrison NDP Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I must confess that I find this panel extremely challenging, because I happen to live in the real world and I happen to live in this century. When we have members on the panel saying things like there is no gay-bashing in this country, which is simply not true, and when they say that hate crimes for the most part aren't violent unless you look at the case of transgender Canadians, when most of the hate crimes that are reported are violent.... We've had a lot of, I think, factually incorrect material.

I think for me the question comes down to the minimizing of the impacts of hate speech, so I'm going to talk very personally here as someone who has been the first out gay man in a lot of different positions. I don't think any of you three understand what the result of hate speech is for people in my position, or for transgender people, or for indigenous women in Canada. I don't think you understand at all what happens in the real world.

When I was appointed to the police board some time ago, we had to have a discussion with the police chief about whether I had to have more police protection, because there were people online—at that time it was early—who were inciting violence against me as an out gay man.

When I was elected to city council in a very progressive community, we had to have discussions about what would happen at the public meetings because of things that were being said and posted about the fact that—my favourite—“someone should do something” about me. I took that very seriously and certainly my partner took that very seriously.

When I was elected to Parliament, I received death threats, multiple death threats. I had to meet with the police chief and have a discussion about what was an appropriate response to those threats. Some were very explicit. Some were less explicit.

My conversation with the police chief was, “If I'm a member of Parliament and somebody who has been an out public figure for—by that time—almost two decades, and this is being directed at me, what is being directed at other members of my community?” It was, “What are they facing on a daily basis? If we don't do something about that, then we are in fact encouraging it to go on.”

The police chief I worked with was very progressive and said, “Surely you're not talking about arrests.” I said, “Of course I'm not talking about arrests, but I'm talking about some door-knocking with those who have directly threatened me and about saying that this behaviour is unacceptable and it needs to stop.” There were a number of cases where the police did agree to do that. In my case, I was not worried on a daily basis that any of those particular individuals which we'd identified would come after me, although it was possible. I was, as I said, worried about the impact of that kind of speech and that kind of behaviour on other members of my community.

I would have to say that for me, when I first arrived in Parliament, there was an official statement done by a party, which I won't name today, suggesting that I was a friend of pedophiles. You might say that's free speech. My argument with the Speaker was that it impaired my ability to do my job as a member of Parliament. By identifying me with a quite reviled—and justly so—group in society, people were affecting my ability to act as a member of Parliament.

Unfortunately, the Speaker at that time never ruled on that question, and I would have to say that perhaps that was a statement by an outlier, because that didn't happen again in Parliament. But it was necessary for me to speak up at that point to prevent the continuation of that kind of speech.

When you—and all three of you have done this—minimize the impact of hate speech on people's daily lives, I think you miss the entire point of these hearings. The entire point of these hearings is not about criminalizing speech. It's about deciding, in a modern society where social media have in fact become the public square, where do we draw the line?

We all know the old cliché that there are limits on speech, that you can't shout fire in a crowded theatre. The problem is defining where that crowded theatre is these days. Quite often, that crowded theatre is online and is the Internet. What this committee is trying to do in these hearings is to figure out where to draw that line. What's the appropriate place? It's not trying to ban speech or ideas.

I would have to say—because one of you did say it—that we need to debate these ideas so we know what's wrong with them. I would submit that we already know what's wrong with racism. We already know what's wrong with homophobia. We already know what's wrong with misogyny. What we're trying to do is to make sure that those ideas have less impact on the real lives of people in our society.

I guess I reject almost everything that you said today, because the context you place it in is academic, it's historical, and it has no relation at all to what happens in the real world.

I believe, Mr. Chair, that we're out of time as a committee, so I will leave my comments there.

9:45 a.m.

As an Individual

Mark Steyn

Could I respond?

9:45 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather

He didn't ask any questions, Mr. Steyn. It's a member's prerogative to make a statement and not ask questions.

Mr. Ehsassi is next.

9:45 a.m.

Liberal

Ali Ehsassi Liberal Willowdale, ON

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Ms. Shepherd, on March 22 you were published in Maclean's. A quote is attributed to you. I suspect you had said, “Appearing on a neo-Nazi podcast and reciting slogans associated with Nazism is distasteful, destructive to healthy race relations and completely deserving of harsh criticism”.

Do you still stand by that?

9:45 a.m.

As an Individual

Lindsay Shepherd

Certainly. That was March 22, 2018.

9:45 a.m.

Liberal

Ali Ehsassi Liberal Willowdale, ON

Okay. Would you agree that racism can be destructive to healthy race relations and deserves to be criticized and condemned?

9:45 a.m.

As an Individual

June 4th, 2019 / 9:45 a.m.

Liberal

Ali Ehsassi Liberal Willowdale, ON

Would you say the same thing about sexism and homophobia, that they're destructive to the public order and should be condemned?

9:45 a.m.

As an Individual

Lindsay Shepherd

Then I have to go into how you are defining those things, but generally with the question as it is, yes.

9:45 a.m.

Liberal

Ali Ehsassi Liberal Willowdale, ON

You agree, then, that all these “isms” can be troubling to the public order and should be.

9:45 a.m.

As an Individual

9:45 a.m.

Liberal

Ali Ehsassi Liberal Willowdale, ON

Do you think Canadian public figures have a responsibility to condemn hate speech?

9:45 a.m.

As an Individual

9:45 a.m.

Liberal

Ali Ehsassi Liberal Willowdale, ON

No. You think it's perfectly fine. You agree it's destructive, but you don't think it should be condemned.

9:45 a.m.

As an Individual

Lindsay Shepherd

I don't think people have a responsibility to condemn.

9:45 a.m.

Liberal

Ali Ehsassi Liberal Willowdale, ON

You don't think people have a responsibility to condemn, but I think you said here that they are “deserving of harsh criticism”.

9:45 a.m.

As an Individual

Lindsay Shepherd

That doesn't mean people have to be assigned a responsibility.

9:45 a.m.

Liberal

Ali Ehsassi Liberal Willowdale, ON

No; however, you do agree that these terrible things are “deserving of harsh criticism”.