Evidence of meeting #43 for Justice and Human Rights in the 40th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was speech.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:05 p.m.
NDP
Joe Comartin NDP Windsor—Tecumseh, ON
So if somebody were to start an action against those two individuals, they would be entirely on their own as far as assuming legal costs is concerned.
4:05 p.m.
Chief Commisioner, Canadian Human Rights Commission
Entirely on their own.
Of course we have tried to put the record straight, and we do welcome this forum as our opportunity to have the important debate that needs to be held, and that is, how do we balance two freedoms, if you will, or two rights? These two rights are the freedom of expression, which is a fundamental right for Canadians protected and guaranteed by the charter, and the freedom from discrimination, which is a fundamental right for Canadians protected in the charter and the Canadian Human Rights Act.
4:05 p.m.
NDP
Joe Comartin NDP Windsor—Tecumseh, ON
Just one quick question. In terms of the review that you did and the report that you brought forward, did you do an analysis of other countries, other jurisdictions similar to ours--England, Australia, New Zealand, parts of the U.S--where similar types of legislation have been passed, and what the experience has been with it?
4:05 p.m.
Chief Commisioner, Canadian Human Rights Commission
There are more than 150 countries that have signed and ratified the various international conventions that require freedom from hate or hateful expression, or its equivalent, and many of these countries, of course, have created legislation accordingly. Canada is one of the very few that has a specific regulation against hate on the Internet. It's a fairly new phenomenon. Australia, while it doesn't have it in its legislation, has a case that has recently clarified that Australia's own provisions do take into account hate on the Internet. We have made some comments in our special report and we have done an internal analysis of a number of countries. I could give you more specific information or provide it to you afterwards if you'd like.
4:10 p.m.
NDP
4:10 p.m.
Chief Commisioner, Canadian Human Rights Commission
I'd be pleased to do that.
4:10 p.m.
Conservative
4:10 p.m.
Conservative
Brent Rathgeber Conservative Edmonton—St. Albert, AB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Ms. Lynch, for your attendance here this afternoon.
I am very confused and concerned about a couple of answers you gave to my friend, Mr. Comartin. You stated that the allegations made against you--and not only in this forum, where the witnesses would have enjoyed some sort of privilege, but also outside this forum.... You have repeated it many times. In fact, one person wrote an entire book dedicated to the subject.
You called them untrue, unsubstantiated, and baseless. My friend Mr. Comartin suggested to you that if that were in fact the case, it would also make them libellous. I agree with his legal analysis. Your answer as to why there will not be any defamation suit filed is that it is because of the cost of prosecuting that litigation. It would be borne by the individuals. It wouldn't be borne by Treasury Board.
Complainants in section 13 complaints cases--section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act--don't have that disadvantage, do they? The investigation is done by the commission. If a complaint is filed, and if an inquiry is launched, they don't have to hire legal counsel, do they?
4:10 p.m.
Chief Commisioner, Canadian Human Rights Commission
Happily, in cases of discrimination, Canada has a process that is less formal than the courts, which gives individuals the opportunity to come forward when they're extremely vulnerable. And of course section 13 cases are considered to be discriminatory.
4:10 p.m.
Conservative
Brent Rathgeber Conservative Edmonton—St. Albert, AB
I'm going to cut you off right there.
The respondents, even in these unsuccessful inquiries, do not have access to any legal defence fund and are put to their own resources to defend a section 13 inquiry and investigation, are they not?
4:10 p.m.
Chief Commisioner, Canadian Human Rights Commission
Our processes are informal, and they're paper-based, with some interviews, which are usually done by telephone. No individual needs to retain counsel during the screening process at the commission level.
4:10 p.m.
Conservative
Brent Rathgeber Conservative Edmonton—St. Albert, AB
If they do retain counsel, and if the inquiry, or for lack of a better term the prosecution--and I use that word loosely--is unsuccessful, that person is entitled to costs neither from the commission nor from the complainant. Is that true?
4:10 p.m.
Chief Commisioner, Canadian Human Rights Commission
Currently there is no provision to provide for costs to either party. We have recommended in our special report that in exceptional circumstances the tribunal be able to award costs at the tribunal level.
4:10 p.m.
Conservative
Brent Rathgeber Conservative Edmonton—St. Albert, AB
You talked about the highest ethical standards, which your employees conform to. Is that published somewhere in your guidelines? Would I find it on the Human Rights Commission website? Is there a code of ethics?
4:10 p.m.
Conservative
Brent Rathgeber Conservative Edmonton—St. Albert, AB
Is there a code of ethics for employees of the Canadian Human Rights Commission?
4:10 p.m.
Chief Commisioner, Canadian Human Rights Commission
We subscribe to the public service values and ethics, of course. Our various professionals would have separate ethical codes of their own--for example, our lawyers, as members of the bar, as members of the law societies, and that sort of thing--to which they subscribe.
4:10 p.m.
Conservative
Brent Rathgeber Conservative Edmonton—St. Albert, AB
I'm going to talk about the allegation against one specific employee of yours. It is Mr. Steacy. The suggestion has been made that he posted on a neo-Nazi website, called Stormfront, and that not only did he post anti-Semitic data, he posted under a false name: jadewarr. Bell Canada, as you know, filed an affidavit indicating that the pseudonym was that of a private citizen.
I know that the Privacy Commissioner has launched an inquiry. But I'm curious to know whether that type of conduct, in your view, Ms. Lynch, would fall under the strongest adherence to professional codes of conduct and ethics.
4:10 p.m.
Chief Commisioner, Canadian Human Rights Commission
The commission and its staff did no such thing. The allegations you are repeating are not true. They did not happen. The event did not happen. The book of documents I will be filing with the clerk will clarify that for you. I can clearly state that it did not happen.
If I could just explain, we have a statutory requirement to investigate hate on the Internet. Police officers who are part of the drug squad must go where the drug operators are and perhaps interact with them. That doesn't make them drug traders or whatever. In our case, we need to go online to identify whether there's Canadian jurisdiction and to determine whether the content is hateful.
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
Brent Rathgeber Conservative Edmonton—St. Albert, AB
Ms. Lynch, Mr. Steacy said in the transcripts of Warman and the Human Rights Commission v. Lemire, “I didn't post under that. The only pseudonym that I posted under in Stormfront is jadewarr.”
He said that he did it.
4:15 p.m.
Chief Commisioner, Canadian Human Rights Commission
Mr. Steacy did use the pseudonym jadewarr, and the documents that we are filing with the clerk will show that he did, and he made one single posting on the Internet. When you read it, you will see that it has clearly nothing to do with hateful expression. He also engaged in a trail of e-mails, using that same pseudonym, and we're filing that with the clerk as well. The exchanges are very bland and have nothing to do with hateful, or even offensive, language.
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
Brent Rathgeber Conservative Edmonton—St. Albert, AB
What about the fact that jadewarr is the registered domain name of a private citizen?
