Bill C-304 (Historical)

An Act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act (protecting freedom)

This enactment amends the Canadian Human Rights Act by deleting section 13 to ensure there is no infringement on freedom of expression guaranteed by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

[Robert Goguen, Conservative, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

By repealing section 13, and this is the intent of Bill C-304, section 54 becomes somewhat redundant because it deals with the penalties, which some of the witnesses have found somewhat offensive, and the damages that can be assessed. However, section 54 also contains subsection 54(2), which is the provision that ensures that no one who obtains employment or accommodation in good faith can be ordered, dismissed, or evicted in order to remedy a discrimination. In fact, the repealing of section 54 in its complete state is inadvertent, because subsection 54(2) has no link whatsoever to the hate messages in section 13.

I'd like to defer to the expert to give the explanation on that, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dave MacKenzie]

Thank you, Mr. Casey.

This amendment proposes to keep section 54 and repeal certain subsections. As the House of Commons Procedure and Practice, second edition, states on page 766: “An amendment to a bill that was referred to committee after second reading is out of order if it is beyond the scope and principle of the bill.”

In the opinion of the chair, the keeping of section 54 and the repealing of certain subsections is contrary to the principle of Bill C-304 and is therefore inadmissible. What is more, as the committee has already voted in favour of eliminating section 13, it would be inconsistent to allow the reference to section 13 in section 54 to be kept in the bill.

We're at G-2. I understand the government has an amendment.

[Craig Scott, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I don't want to go over the same territory that my colleague, the justice critic, has gone over, so I'll try to keep my own remarks fairly brief.

I think it's really important that whatever happens with the upcoming vote on this, we do keep the record of witnesses firmly in mind for purposes of going forward. If the bill passes, I think it should still be open to some kind of revisiting of this issue, to build back up the appropriate protections within the Canadian Human Rights Act.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, for having mentioned the fact that there is a one-year delay on this, which obviously gives some space for that kind of approach.

Obviously, if the bill doesn't pass, then I personally would be happy to commit to working in a multi-party way, treating seriously the kinds of suggestions we've heard, and the other suggestions that we know are out there, to make section 13 work procedurally, to get rid of the abuses in the system.

I think it's really important to note that no witness before us—no witness—referred to the content of section 13 or decisions made by tribunals under section 13 with respect to section 13 as being the problem. All were supportive of that. Everybody focused on different versions of problems of abuse.

I accept the question of where we've gotten at the point of perceptions of the process is perhaps equally as important, which Mr. Jean has brought up. I think that's a very valid point. But it's not about the content, and I think we are in a situation of being about to possibly repeal something without anything adequate to replace it. Frankly, the Criminal Code provision, we've heard—we know—is not doing the job. So we are doing it in the context of diminishing protection, at the moment. That's basically what the result will be.

I think whatever happens with respect to the vote on Bill C-304, we would do well as a committee to think about whether or not something can be salvaged from the process that's been streamlined in the way it's had to be streamlined—because it's a private member's bill, because we're getting to it on second reading, and so on.

I think it's important just to reiterate the point made by Mr. Kurz, who in today's session was probably most convinced that apart from it being a fait accompli, it's so problematic procedurally that he almost sees no choice. But he did say, and this is a cobbled-together quote using his words but with two sections put together, that every section 13 decision has been “unassailable”, and that the Canadians Human Rights Act is “a very good piece of legislation”.

I think that's really important, because some of the questions have attempted to get the witnesses to say that the content and the decisions with respect to section 13 are part of the problem, and no witness has acknowledged that.

Then there was Mr. Matas's plea, frankly, to not abandon the effort to reform even if section 13 is repealed.

I think we owe it to Canadians, and we owe it to those who take seriously what section 13 has been trying to accomplish, to take that plea very, very seriously.

I'll leave it at that. I think we all know where this is going, but it would be nice if it's not the end.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Yes, please. This is about clause 2. Before we get to a vote, I want to reflect on a few points.

Considering that this bill simply proposes to repeal section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act, we were obviously very aware that any amendment attempt would be problematic without an opening on the government side. It was essentially the position of the sponsor of the bill to simply repeal section 13, unless there was an opening on the government side.

However, I would like to repeat to the government and to the Conservative members of this committee that we heard witnesses invariably saying that they were aware of the problems related to section 13. They recognized the procedural abuse problems. They were also aware of the problem of the punitive provisions. I will get back to these later on.

However, I have said and I will say it again that throwing out the baby with the bathwater is not the right answer. We have to stop thinking that the solution has to be strictly limited to the Criminal Code. I simply want to remind committee members of the burden of proof. We all have enough knowledge of the rule of law to realize that the burden of proof is not at all the same under the Criminal Code. Moreover, in the case of an offense under section 319 of the Criminal Code, the context is not the same either. And the targeted groups are not necessarily the same.

I am concerned about the fact that, unlike the Canadian Human Rights Act, the Criminal Code does not include sex as a distinguishing factor of the protected groups. So women can be targeted by hate speech as this aspect is not at all dealt with in section 319 of the Criminal Code. On the other hand, section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act undoubtedly protects women against hate speech.

What is being done here will cause serious problems. We are all in favor of freedom of expression. One of the witnesses we heard on Tuesday—I am not sure of her name, but I think it was Ms. Mahoney—told us that it is not a matter of freedom of expression but of hate speech. Hate speech is not at all the same as freedom of expression. I do not believe anyone around this table is in favor of freedom of hate speech. We are all against this. I do not doubt that for a second.

However, there is room for a civil remedy or a remedy based on a chart or code provided it is well conceived and is not abusive. Nothing was more convincing to me than to hear our last witnesses say that they blindly support the process chosen by the government in consenting to this private member bill but that they feel anyway this is a fait accompli. They are hoping the Criminal Code will be amended. This is a remarkable act of faith on their part.

In fact, if the government does not act, we will probably get down to it and try to find a way to strengthen section 319 of the Criminal Code. We have to do it first to deal with the problem I just mentioned that women are absolutely not protected by section 319. However, the remedy provided by section 13 will never be replaced. The fact that some people abused this remedy or engaged in multiple proceedings is not reason enough to simply abolish some extremely important human rights safeguards.

Our committee did not hear these people because, unfortunately, time and the number of witnesses were limited.

Let me say, incidentally, that it would have been nice to do with Bill C-304 what was done with Bill C-26. We are all aware of the problems and we could have taken a little more time to try to find some smart answers with the participation of the sponsor of the bill, Mr. Storseth. We will see him later on.

When the opposition moves amendments to repeal some provisions, they are usually considered to be beyond the scope of the bill. However, when a government member moves an amendment that would repeal some provisions beyond the scope of the bill, being from the same party as the sponsor, he or she can expect the amendment to be easily passed. This is unfortunate. Indeed an amendment is not automatically bad simply because it comes from the opposition.

I think this kind of work could have been done serenely and in good faith. We could have tried to avoid repealing a provision that is perhaps simply not drafted or used the way it should have been. We could have attempted to simply remove the irritants from this section. We still believe that hate speech should not be tolerated in Canada and that we should have remedies other than the Criminal Code. Indeed, in criminal law the burden of proof is quite high and the proof submitted has to be beyond a reasonable doubt, which is not easy to establish.

The Quebec Bar, of which I am a member, sent us a document that you have probably all received. I would like to quote a few excerpts of this document before concluding my comments on section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act. The last paragraph of the first page says this:

The Quebec Bar would like to reaffirm the reasonable and balanced nature of prohibiting hate messages and show its support for the civil penalty outlined in section 13 of the Act. While we are staunch supporters of the freedom of expression provided for in section 2(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, we believe that limits established by legislation and case law are needed to oversee the exercising of this right. Yet the scope of this freedom cannot be determined in isolation. This is why section 319 of the Criminal Code formally prohibits hate propaganda. Furthermore, the Quebec Bar would like to draw your attention to Canada’s international obligations, which must be respected and promoted. A key example is the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which Canada ratified in 1976: it addresses freedom of expression in Article 19 and outlines the limits of this freedom in Article 20, condemning the advocacy of hatred and incitement to violence.

Canada is party to many other treaties. A bit further, the document says:

While, in theory, section 13 of the Act could be considered a considerable constraint upon the freedom of expression, in practice, this concern was addressed in Canada (Human Rights Commission) v. Taylor, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 892. The Supreme Court confirmed that section 13 is subject to a strict interpretation.

I believe it would have been possible to amend this bill. Without completely repealing section 13, we could have prevented ill-intentioned people from abusing it in order to restrict freedom of expression and launch innumerable proceedings against others. This bill will likely be passed, and this is regrettable. It is also unfortunate that the only remedy left will be the Criminal Code.

I hope the government and the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Justice will take good note of all the recommendations submitted by the witnesses who appeared before the committee. They stated that if the chosen avenue is the Criminal Code, significant amendments would be required to ensure that reasonable standards are being met. I do not think our society wants the definition of freedom of expression to include hate speech, particularly if we consider the electronic tools at our disposal and most importantly, the World Wide Web where this kind of speech can be found.

As our last witnesses said, what is happening in Europe is coming to the shores of Canada. After passage of Bill C-304, our country will be considerably more vulnerable to hate speech.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dave MacKenzie]

Thank you, Mr. Casey. You were correct that House of Commons Procedure and Practice, second edition, states on page 766 the following: “An amendment to a bill that was referred to a committee after second reading is out of order if it is beyond the scope and principle of the bill.”

In the opinion of the chair, the keeping of section 13 and the addition of a subsection to section 13 is contrary to the principle of Bill C-304 and is therefore inadmissible.

My understanding is that Ms. Boivin would like to speak to clause 2.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dave MacKenzie]

Thank you, Mr. Casey.

The ruling of the chair is that, as House of Commons Procedure and Practice, second edition, states on page 766, “An amendment to a bill that was referred to a committee after second reading is out of order if it is beyond the scope and principle of the bill”, in the opinion of the chair, the keeping of section 13 and the addition of a subsection to section 13 is contrary to the principle of Bill C-304 and is therefore inadmissible.

[David Matas]

This jurisdiction is a very particular one. It's basically telephone and Internet, because it deals with the federal jurisdiction on the issue. There are other problems with section 13. The hate jurisdiction federally is split up: the CRTC deals with broadcasting, the post office deals with hate by the post, and so on.

One of the recommendations we've made through the years is on consolidation of all these various federal jurisdictions, with one tribunal dealing with all of them. In fact, the Human Rights Commission has supported that. I agree with my colleagues that section 13 hasn't worked and has become tainted by its failure. But I don't think we should abandon all of these proposals for reform simply because or if Bill C-304 passes. There is room for civil jurisdiction. The federal parliamentarians should be looking at making an effective, coordinated, unified, procedurally sensible jurisdiction to deal with hate speech, whether section 13 survives or not.

[David Matas]

Excuse me, but I will answer you in English.

Yes, I think basically you've understood it. Obviously, we don't draft legislation. We don't get it through Parliament. Our ideal world wouldn't either support Bill C-304 or defeat Bill C-304, but faced with the choice, which is the choice we have, our choice is support. In our ideal world, we would build a sandcastle that wouldn't look like Bill C-304 or its defeat.

[David Matas, Senior Legal Counsel, B'nai Brith Canada]

Thanks.

I'll be equally brief, if not briefer.

One of the lessons of the Holocaust is the need for an effective effort to combat hate speech. The Weimar Republic had laws against hate speech. They did not work.

If eliminationist anti-Semitism had been effectively combatted in the years before 1933, the Holocaust would never have happened.

Canada, both federally and provincially, has engaged in a plethora of efforts to combat hate speech. The laws, though, suffer from two extremes. Some laws, the criminal laws, are almost dead letters, rarely invoked. Other laws, the civil human rights laws, are too easily used, indeed abused, harassing innocents and threatening freedom of speech.

The solution that Bill C-304 presents to Parliament is abolishing the jurisdiction to deal with the abuse.

In our view, there is room for a civil remedy, and the civil remedies exist provincially, as well as, at least now, federally. Those civil remedies, though, have been abused, and provincially, if they are going to survive, they are going to need reforms to keep them working.

Some of the abuses we've seen, which lead to the reforms we've recommended and still recommend, are ensuring full disclosure to the target of the complaint, not allowing for the making of anonymous complaints, giving the power toward cost to the target of a complaint, requiring the complainant to choose only one form or venue, and screening cases even where commissions do not conduct cases.

We would hope that the coming abolition of the federal law does not serve as a model for the provinces, but it should be a warning for the provinces that they amend their jurisdictions to prevent them from the sort of abuse that we have seen and that my colleague Marvin will talk about.

It is unsatisfactory, though, to abolish a civil remedy open to abuse and leave standing only a criminal remedy, which is almost never invoked. Obstacles to use of the criminal law need to be removed. Crimes that reform the criminal law should include banning racist groups; giving courts the authority to allow impact statements from victim groups targeted by hate speech, including hate motivation as a constituent element of aggravated offences rather than just an aggravated factor in sentencing; and setting out guidelines for courts and for attorneys general, so that attorneys general, when they're exercising their discretion to consent, have these guidelines. Also, legislating a specific offence of Holocaust denial....

Combatting anti-Semitism means dealing with anti-Semitism as it is today in its modern forms. Ultimately, the subject matter of this committee and our concern is combatting hatred effectively, whether through the criminal law or the civil law. We do have a problem and we do need a legal remedy for it.

Marvin, why don't you add to that?

[The Chair, Conservative, Dave MacKenzie]

I call this meeting to order, this being the 32nd meeting of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Wednesday, February 15, 2012, we are here to consider Bill C-304, An Act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act (protecting freedom).

This morning we have three witnesses, all from the same organization, from B'nai Brith.

I think in the correspondence you received from the clerk it was indicated that you have five to seven minutes for an opening address. Whichever member wishes to make that address, or share it, you can start now.

[Mark Toews, Member, Canadian Bar Association]

Thank you.

You've received our submission. This morning I'd like to provide a synopsis of CBA's concerns with Bill C-304 and reiterate our recommendations.

The CBA has a keen interest in and supports the work and operation of not only the Canadian Human Rights Commission and the tribunal but also human rights commissions and tribunals at the provincial and territorial level.

The CBA supports the inclusion of and retention of section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act. We support the values embodied in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and in human rights legislation. While we support the right to freedom of expression, it is important to note that no freedom is absolute. All rights and freedoms are subject to limitation by countervailing rights.

The right to be free from discrimination based on race, religion, or other characteristics, and to be treated with dignity, is a countervailing right that can be a reasonable limit to the right to freedom of expression. It is a fundamental value in our society, arguably as fundamental as the value of free expression. It is also a value that is consistent with the spirit of the charter as expressed in section 15, the equality rights provisions, and section 27, dealing with Canadian multiculturalism.

Now is not the time to repeal section 13. The number of hate messages and communications has not diminished over the years. The advent of the Internet, including e-mail, and social media such as Facebook and Twitter have made it possible to spread hate messages instantly and to a worldwide audience.

Recently the Honourable Justice Rosalie Abella of the Supreme Court of Canada publicly lamented that we haven't learned the most important lesson, which is to try to prevent the abuses from happening in the first place.

It is submitted that atrocities have occurred where a culture of prejudice and discrimination was permitted to grow—for example, the Tutsis in Rwanda, the Falun Gong in China. Such a culture is created where the dissemination of hateful and intolerant views is allowed unchecked.

In our submission we have provided an example of the type of anti-Semitic hate messages that are spread today via the Internet but that were successfully dealt with by the tribunal. By voting to remove section 13 from the act, parliamentarians are in effect voting to allow the proliferation of this type of egregious speech in Canada and beyond via the Internet.

This seems rather ironic, given that at the same time the government is establishing an office of religious freedom designed to promote and protect religious freedom and minorities abroad, to oppose intolerance, and to promote Canadian values of pluralism and tolerance. These are the same values that section 13 is designed to protect. We believe the protection of religious freedom and minorities begins here at home.

Section 13 applies to conduct that falls short of criminal behaviour but that nevertheless poses harm to vulnerable target groups. Without section 13, the only tool the state will have to deal with this type of discrimination is the Criminal Code.

In order to successfully prosecute an individual under subsection 319(1) of the Criminal Code, the crown must prove, on the more onerous criminal evidentiary standard of “beyond a reasonable doubt”, that the accused publicly communicated statements and intended to incite hatred against an identifiable group to such a degree that they're likely to lead to a breach of the peace.

For example, in the Ahenakew case, despite making comments about the Jews, including that they were a disease, he was ultimately acquitted, since the elements of the offence could not be proven at the criminal standard. If only the Criminal Code tool remains, it is foreseeable that hate messages such as the examples in our submission will proliferate and spread unchecked in Canada and beyond its borders.

It's interesting to note that the United Nations Human Rights Committee has upheld section 13 against allegations that it violated freedom of expression guaranteed by article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. In fact, article 20 of the international covenant prohibits any advocacy of religious or racial hatred that would incite discrimination. This suggests that retaining section 13 is necessary if Canada is to meet its obligations under the covenant.

While the CBA recommends the retention of section 13 in the act, it agrees with the repeal of the penalty provision in paragraph 54(1)(c) and its related provision in subsection 54(1.1), while retaining the provisions in paragraphs 54(1)(a) and (b). Penalty provisions are not consistent with the core remedial functions of human rights legislation, and are contrary to the underlying philosophy of such legislation, which is the eradication of discrimination, the encouragement of equality, and fostering tolerance.

By repealing these two provisions, Parliament will respond to the need to protect the right to freedom of expression and will underscore that remedies for violations of section 13 are purely civil. The repeal of paragraph 54(1)(c) and subsection 54(1.1) would remove any basis for concerns about the constitutionality of section 13.

Those are my brief comments. Thank you.

[Judy Hunter, Staff Lawyer, Legislation and Law Reform, Canadian Bar Association]

Good afternoon. Thank you for the invitation to the Canadian Bar Association to present its views to the committee today on Bill C-304.

The CBA is a national association of over 37,000 lawyers, law students, notaries, and academics. An important aspect of CBA's mandate is to uphold the rule of law and seek improvements in the law and in the administration of justice. It is this optic that informs our comments to you today. The CBA's national constitutional and human rights law section and equality committee are the authors of the submission you have before you and are composed of lawyers with specialized knowledge in human rights.

Mr. Toews is a member of the constitutional and human rights law section. He practises human rights law in Winnipeg.

[Brian Storseth, Conservative, Westlock—St. Paul, AB]

Thank you very much, Mr. Goguen.

I'll go over a little bit of the chronology of how my private member's bill has unfolded. This bill, I have to admit, started right here in the justice committee in 2007, when the member for St. Catharines actually put forward a study of the effects of repealing section 13. That study unfortunately never came to fruition because of the nature of minority Parliaments.

In 2008, when I had the opportunity to sit on this justice committee—and I can say the talent has only increased since I have been here—I also put forward a motion to study it. The committee, even in a minority circumstance, admitted that there were significant problems with section 13. Once again, in a minority context, it never really went any further than that.

It would be overwhelming to talk about all of the groups that have endorsed this type of legislation since pre-2008 when I first put it forward in this committee, but I am heartened to tell you that Bill C-304, since I have put it forward on the order paper, did receive the support of the Canadian Jewish Congress and the Muslim Canadian Congress. I also received the support of PEN Canada and the editorial support of the National Post and even the Toronto Star.

The point is that there has been wide-ranging support. It hasn't been from the left or the right of the political spectrum. It hasn't been about blue or orange. It has really been about doing away with a piece of legislation that Canadians.... Education on what this legislation actually does and how it has been implemented for 40-plus years I feel has really appalled Canadians.

Most importantly, I would say that the most important support I have received has been from Canadians across this country. I have been from coast to coast to coast in discussing section 13 and what problems I feel there are with it. When you address it with Canadians and sit down and actually tell them what's happening, they're absolutely appalled. It really doesn't matter whether you're in a forum that's predominantly one political party or another; the sentiment I have received has been the same.

In my own riding I did a poll on this. Interestingly enough, repealing section 13 was the only issue more popular in my riding than the repeal of the long-gun registry. I think that's quite interesting, and goes to show.... There was 87% support. I don't get 87% of the vote in my riding—almost, but not quite. That goes to show me that this legislation I believe transcends political boundaries. As such, I'm hoping that the next time this comes forward we can work cooperatively and get more support from the opposition on this as well.

[Brian Storseth, Conservative, Westlock—St. Paul, AB]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I'll endeavour to do my best not to be cut off.

Mr. Chair, to begin, I would like to thank you and the committee for the opportunity to discuss my private member's bill, Bill C-304, An Act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act (protecting freedom).

This is an issue that has been near and dear to my heart for a number of years. I am thankful to have received support from a large number of my colleagues, numerous media outlets, and most importantly, Canadians, on this important and often overlooked issue.

Bill C-304 will help protect and enhance our most fundamental freedom, freedom of expression. Without freedom of expression, one must ask oneself what value freedom of religion or freedom of assembly holds. Freedom of expression is truly the bedrock upon which all other freedoms are built, and section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act directly erodes this fundamental freedom.

Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act has been a contentious topic for a number of years. It has been widely acknowledged that it impedes upon paragraph 2(b) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which states that every individual has the fundamental “freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication”.

This conflict between section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act and paragraph 2(b) of the charter was reaffirmed in 2008 by Professor Richard Moon, who was hand-picked by the Canadian Human Rights Commission to review the act. He stated on page 31 of his report that “the principal recommendation of this report is that section 13 be repealed so that the censorship of Internet hate speech is dealt with exclusively by the criminal law”. It was reaffirmed once again in 2009 by the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal itself, which found section 13 to be unconstitutional.

Over the past few months I have had many opportunities to attend a number of conferences and annual general meetings to discuss with Canadians across our country my private member's bill and the implications of repealing section 13. Most people are astounded when they hear that our fundamental freedoms can be overruled by a quasi-judicial body that feels that something you said was likely to have exposed another individual or group to hatred or contempt. Canadians find it difficult to believe that such a loosely written and vague law has the power to undermine the fundamental rights Canada so proudly bases its democracy upon and which men and women have given their lives defending.

While section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act may have been implemented with well-meaning intentions in an effort to combat discrimination and hate speech, its implications reach much further. It is this zone of ambiguity we should all be concerned about.

Section 13 states:

It is a discriminatory practice for a person or a group of persons acting in concert to communicate telephonically or to cause to be so communicated, repeatedly, in whole or in part by means of the facilities of a telecommunication undertaking within the legislative authority of Parliament, any matter that is likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt by reason of the fact that that person or those persons are identifiable on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination.

I'd like to emphasize, Mr. Chair, “any matter that is likely to expose a person or persons to hatred”.

Subsection (2) goes on to extend this law to matters that are communicated by means of a computer or the Internet.

What this really means is that the Canadian Human Rights Commission and the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal only have to feel that you were likely to have offended someone. This is not a narrowly defined legal definition, which would be far more appropriate.

Under section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act, truth is not a defence. Intent is not a defence. You no longer have the right to due process, the right to a speedy trial, or the right to an attorney. It is alarming that, until recently, the Human Rights Tribunal had a 100% conviction rate, with 90% of defendants failing to obtain legal advice, because they simply could not afford it. At the same time, the legal costs of the plaintiffs are fully covered.

These are not the characteristics of an open and democratic society that promotes equality and fairness. These provisions are provided to any other individual in any other court in Canada under the Criminal Code. This is a clear depiction of censorship overstepping its bounds through an overzealous bureaucracy.

This is one of the reasons I have introduced Bill C-304, protecting freedom. It is an effort to reconstruct freedom of expression as a cornerstone of our great country. To achieve this, complaints must be directed to a fair, open, and transparent judicial system, not a broken system that prides itself on operating behind closed doors.

By repealing section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act, Canadians will be given back the right to be offended and individuals will have recourse to hate speech through the Criminal Code of Canada. The continued use of the Criminal Code to address hate messaging will ensure that all individuals are protected from threatening discriminatory acts, while preserving the fundamental right to freedom of expression in our country. It gives back the right to a fair, open, and transparent trial. It gives back the right to face your accuser. It gives back the right to allowable defences, such as truth or intent. It even gives back the right to recover costs should the claim be dismissed.

The Criminal Code has been tried and tested. It is ingrained with a system of checks and balances, a system in which society has entrusted its fundamental freedoms and has seen fit to enforce the rule of law in our country.

The solution here is not to take a band-aid approach and address the superficial inadequacies of section 13. The fundamental deficiencies and broken structure will still be there. These issues cannot simply be fixed through amendments, as section 13 would still be imposed under the discretion of a quasi-judicial system, and the fundamental principles that guide the implementation of section 13 would continue to create a two-tiered system of hate speech, which I find simply not appropriate.

I believe the solution is to use the laws we already have and to provide authorities with the tools and support necessary. This step will ensure the successful transition in which true democracy and freedom of speech can thrive so that society can continue to grow and adapt peacefully.

It is through freedom of speech and expression that we change governments—or not, in the case of Alberta last night—not through riots and revolts. It is how we test societal norms and successfully develop. It is through freedom of expression that we have shaped and will continue to shape our great nation.

I would like to challenge this committee to look beyond the intent of section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act and truly examine its structure and implications, and consider what we, as a free and democratic society, are willing to give up.

Thank you for your time, and I look forward to your comments and questions. God bless.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dave MacKenzie]

I call the meeting to order, this being meeting 31 of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Wednesday, February 15, 2012, we are dealing with Bill C-304, an act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act on protecting freedom. This morning we have the sponsor of the bill, Mr. Storseth, the MP for Westlock—St. Paul.

If you have an opening address, please give it to us. You have up to ten minutes. I'll let you know when you reach nine minutes, and we'll cut you off at ten.