00:00:00.000The right of the people to discuss and debate ideas forms the very foundation
00:00:11.100of democracy. Those are not my words. They are words written by the Supreme
00:00:16.740Court of Canada in a case called Harper and Canada, and they bear repeating. The
00:00:23.700right of people to discuss and debate ideas forms the very foundation of democracy. Yet something
00:00:32.420deeply unhealthy is happening in our public discourse. When people questioning government
00:00:40.080policy are called extremists, when they raise concerns about immigration or social cohesion,
00:00:47.560they are called racists. When they question public health discourse or speak about vaccine injuries
00:00:54.860they are called anti-vaxxers. When they challenge the constitutional status quo
00:01:00.860they are accused of being dangerous, disloyal or even traitors. These labels are not intended
00:01:09.300to encourage dialogue. They are used to end it. Disagreement is healthy. Criticism is healthy.
00:01:17.560If an idea is wrong, challenge it, present the facts, show your white piece of paper, produce evidence, make a better argument.
00:01:25.740But when criticism becomes an attempt to silence, exclude, or destroy the person raising the issues, we're no longer engaging in a democratic debate.
00:01:38.160you cannot convince me that silencing labeling and censoring citizens creates
00:01:46.120a kind and an inclusive society or a strong and healthy democracy it does
00:01:53.160precisely the opposite freedom of expression matters because governments
00:01:58.800can be wrong institutions can fail and accepted beliefs can change so let us
00:02:05.820return to the words of the highest court in Canada. In the Harper case, the Supreme
00:02:11.740Court emphasized the importance of unpopular and minority views, stating
00:02:16.700permitting an effective voice for unpopular and minority views, views
00:02:23.160political parties may not embrace, is essential to deliberative democracy. The
00:02:29.820goal should be to bring the views of all citizens into the political arena for
00:02:35.380consideration, be they accepted or rejected at the end of the day. Free speech in the public square
00:02:43.820may not be curtailed merely because one might find the message unappetizing or the message
00:02:50.800distasteful. Think about what that means. Unpopular or minority views are not inconveniences that
00:03:00.420democracy must merely tolerate. They are essential to democracy itself. That does not mean every idea
00:03:08.720must be accepted. Ideas may be challenged or ejected, but citizens must be permitted to raise
00:03:15.880them, and their arguments should be answered on their merits. Freedom of expression is easy to
00:03:23.800defend when the speaker is popular, the message is comfortable, and everyone in the room agrees.
00:03:29.600Its real value is revealed when the message is difficult, the speaker is disliked, and the opinion challenges those who hold power.
00:03:40.260The judges also address the right to persuade.
00:03:44.180The ability to engage in effective speech in the public discourse means nothing if it does not include the ability to attempt to persuade one's fellow citizens through debate and discussion.
00:03:58.280In other words, meaningful political expression is not permission to speak quietly among people who already agree with you.
00:04:06.880It is the ability to enter into the public square, question prevailing beliefs, advocate for change, and attempt to persuade others.
00:04:18.180Yet today, people increasingly remain silent, not because they have nothing to say, but because they fear losing relationships.
00:04:27.480employment opportunities or their place in communities. This is not a sign of a healthy
00:04:35.120society. Our constitutional history shows why citizens must refuse to be silenced.
00:04:42.540Consider the person's case. In 1927, five Alberta women challenged the prevailing interpretation
00:04:51.040that women are not qualified persons eligible for an appointment to the Senate.
00:04:57.480They lost before the Supreme Court of Canada, but they did not stop.
00:05:02.480They pursued their case to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council,
00:05:07.480then Canada's highest Court of Appeal, and in 1929 they won.
00:05:12.480Those women did not bring about change by remaining silent.0.61
00:05:16.480They organized, they challenged, they accepted legal order,0.99
00:05:21.480and they persisted beyond their initial defeat.
00:05:25.480Imagine if they had been dismissed as extremists for questioning that thought was settled in authority.
00:06:12.120And our system is predicated on the faith that in the marketplace of ideas,
00:06:17.360the best solutions to public problems will raise to the top.
00:06:22.200Inevitably, there will be dissenting voices.
00:06:25.440A democratic system of government is committed to considering those dissenting voices.
00:06:31.620The court explained that our democratic institutions accommodate a continuous process of discussion and evolution,
00:06:41.400including the right of each participant in confederation to initiate constitutional change.
00:06:47.200The court also explained what would happen if people of a province clearly expressed a desire to leave Canada, stating the continued existence and operation of the Canadian constitutional order could not remain indifferent to a clear expression of a clear majority of Quebecers that they no longer wish to remain in Canada.
00:07:12.460In other words, a referendum does not itself cause separation or change the Constitution.
00:07:20.660A clear majority voting on a clear question would instead give the democratic legitimacy for constitutional negotiations.
00:07:30.460It does not guarantee any particular outcome.
00:07:34.300Yet many people are making things up about how this process would work.
00:07:38.280They suggest that merely discussing independence, advocating for it, or even voting in a referendum would somehow automatically change Canada's constitutional order.
00:07:50.180This is not true. It is simply fear-mongering.
00:07:54.240If Quebecers were entitled to have that discussion, Albertans are entitled to have it too.
00:08:00.700The Supreme Court even set out the process a province could take to follow,
00:08:06.460and the Parliament later confirmed that process in the Clarity Act.
00:08:11.760One may support independence, oppose it, or remain undecided,
00:08:16.340but calling that discussion extremist is not an argument.
00:08:21.300Calling its supporters traitors is not an answer,
00:08:25.140and shaming citizens into silence is not democracy.
00:08:29.960If the discussion is lawful and the process is clearly set out in Canadian law, why is there so much vitriol towards citizens who want to have the discussion?
00:08:41.500That question reveals what this is really about.
00:08:45.740This is not fundamentally about right and left.
00:08:49.940The real divide is not between neighbours who vote differently.
00:08:53.720It is between unaccountable power and a public demanding answers.
00:08:59.960It is about whether powerful institutions remain accountable to the people, or whether those in power get to decide who may speak, which questions may be asked, and whether citizens can still challenge their government without being branded, punished, or pushed out of public life.
00:09:20.660And this is not an abstract constitutional debate when we live with the consequences of an unaccountable government decisions every day.
00:09:31.280We must absolutely question government when we are not being heard.
00:09:36.360We must speak up when families are struggling to survive and young people no longer see a future.
00:09:42.420we must demand change when veterans and seniors are suffering while governments continue to spend
00:09:50.400recklessly and endlessly we must demand hospitals and schools that are safe functional and
00:09:59.140competently managed we must expect drivable roads and reliable public services these are not
00:10:07.540unreasonable expectations. They are the most basic responsibilities of government.
00:10:14.900When government fails in that responsibility, questioning it is not dangerous or disloyal.
00:10:22.060That is why civic education matters. Learn how Canada was created, how our government is supposed
00:10:29.320to work, and what our most important court decisions actually say. Empower yourself with
00:10:36.500knowledge and then put that knowledge to work you do not have to do everything but everyone can do
00:10:43.860something choose an issue learn who can change it find others who share your concerns and choose a
00:10:51.460lawful course of action and follow through governments and institutions often rely upon
00:10:58.500citizens losing interest becoming discouraged or moving on to the next controversy accountability
00:11:06.420requires persistence. Every case I mentioned began with a person or a small group of people
00:11:13.620who refused to accept that the existing answer was necessarily correct. They questioned,
00:11:21.660they challenged, they acted, and they persisted. But their willingness to question and act was
00:11:28.620fundamental to the development of our law and democracy. We do not have to agree with every
00:11:34.720protest every court challenge or every proposal for constitutional change but we should defend
00:11:41.600the right of canadians to raise them peacefully lawfully and openly science develops through
00:11:48.640questioning law develops through challenge democracy develops through disagreement
00:11:56.640the right to question power is not a threat to democracy it is the very thing that keeps democracy
00:12:02.960alive. So go ahead, be a rebel rouser, get educated, get involved, ask tough questions,
00:12:12.580and make those in power uncomfortable. History remembers those who stood up
00:12:19.000and helped move society forward. Holding government accountable is not radical.
00:12:25.100it is not disloyal it is not merely our right it is our duty the question is
00:12:33.800no longer whether you are allowed to stand up the question is will you