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.