Evidence of meeting #32 for Justice and Human Rights in the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was we've.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
NDP
Françoise Boivin NDP Gatineau, QC
Just for clarification, I saw amendment G-1 in conjunction with amendment G-2, so are you still moving amendment G-2?
Conservative
Robert Goguen Conservative Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB
Yes. We had a premonition that it might have been ruled out of order.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Dave MacKenzie
I would just say, Madame Boivin, maybe you shouldn't have been foreseeing the future.
(Clause 4 negatived)
(On clause 5)
We have Liberal-3. Mr. Casey.
Liberal
Sean Casey Liberal Charlottetown, PE
You've already heard my remarks on this. It's a long section. This is designed to reinstate or restore section 54, except for the monetary penalty provisions. You've heard from the Canadian Bar Association. The Supreme Court of Canada has also pronounced on the monetary penalty provisions. We believe they should be taken out but that in all other respects section 54 should remain.
The rest of section 54 allows offenders to make amends to those affected by hate speech. The Liberal Party supports the Canadian Bar Association's approach in this regard and would hope that the other committee members would see it the same way.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Conservative
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.
Conservative
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.
Eric Nielsen Counsel, Human Rights Law Section, Department of Justice
I'll begin with clause 5. Clause 5 would repeal section 54 in whole. Section 54 of the act contains three subsections. Section 54.1 and subsection 54.1(1) directly relate to section 13. Section 54.2 does not relate to section 13. My understanding of the amendment to the bill is that it would preserve the effect of section 54.2 by simply making it the new section 54.
One benefit of that, as I understand it, is that this will allow the subheadings to be accurate. If section 54.2 were maintained as is, in its current number, its subheading would be “Item”, which relates back to orders relating to hate messages in 54.1, which is an inaccurate subheading. Rewriting section 54 simply to contain section 54.2 allows this committee to specify an accurate subheading.
That is my understanding of the intent and the effect of the amendment to the bill.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Dave MacKenzie
Thank you.
This amendment proposes to keep a portion of section 54. The House of Commons Procedure and Practice, second edition, states on page 767: “The committee's decisions concerning a bill must be consistent with earlier decisions made by the committee.”
Section 54 of the act deals with orders relating to hate messages and is therefore dependent on the existence of section 13, the offence of hate messages. As the committee has already voted in favour of the elimination of section 13, the chair is of the opinion that it is inconsistent to maintain an order for an offence that no longer exists.
Conservative
Robert Goguen Conservative Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB
Mr. Chair, we can't phone a friend, but we will challenge the decision. So we'll poll the audience.
NDP
Françoise Boivin NDP Gatineau, QC
I was about to say that we'll challenge the chair, but I prefer that a Conservative challenge the chair. I'm honest. I would have done it.
Conservative
Conservative
NDP
Françoise Boivin NDP Gatineau, QC
So I cannot tell the committee that I feel it's nice to agree amongst ourselves that we want to amend something that doesn't go well. Okay. Thank you. I won't say it.
Conservative
NDP
Françoise Boivin NDP Gatineau, QC
(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(Clause 5 as amended agreed to)
(Clauses 6 and 7 agreed to)