Evidence of meeting #150 for Justice and Human Rights in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was online.
A recording is available from Parliament.
10:30 a.m.
Liberal
Nathaniel Erskine-Smith Liberal Beaches—East York, ON
Mr. Cameron, I share your love of paragraph 2(b).
As a young law student, I once volunteered for the CCLA.
Hi Cara, it's nice to see you again.
I want to ask about different ways we already restrict speech.
Do you agree with laws that restrict speech related to terror? Just be brief; just say yes or no.
10:30 a.m.
Barrister and Solicitor, Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms
That is related to what, sorry?
10:30 a.m.
Liberal
10:30 a.m.
Barrister and Solicitor, Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms
That's a Criminal Code offence.
10:30 a.m.
Barrister and Solicitor, Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms
Absolutely.
10:30 a.m.
Barrister and Solicitor, Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms
The law of defamation is tried in civil court. It's punished. It's not censored prior to the defamation. There's a difference.
10:30 a.m.
Liberal
Nathaniel Erskine-Smith Liberal Beaches—East York, ON
I understand. It's still defamation.
Harassment.
10:30 a.m.
Barrister and Solicitor, Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms
Do you mean criminal harassment?
10:30 a.m.
Barrister and Solicitor, Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms
Absolutely. Do you mean a restraining order or something like that?
Sure.
May 16th, 2019 / 10:30 a.m.
Barrister and Solicitor, Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms
Sure.
10:30 a.m.
Liberal
Nathaniel Erskine-Smith Liberal Beaches—East York, ON
On hate under the Criminal Code, I understood you do support the existing laws.
10:30 a.m.
Barrister and Solicitor, Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms
It's the law.
10:30 a.m.
Liberal
Nathaniel Erskine-Smith Liberal Beaches—East York, ON
Now let's talk about how we enforce those laws.
The problem online is that, in many ways, these existing laws—which you and I both support as restrictions on speech—are unenforceable in effect. The Criminal Code is a very cumbersome instrument and can't properly apply in so many instances when there's such a voluminous amount of hate online. Our law enforcement agencies and our courts can't possibly keep up with the comments, whether those comments are on Twitter, on Facebook or whatever the case may be. I'm not talking about censoring your favourite conservative commentator. I'm talking about what you and I agree with, which is enforcing existing laws under the Criminal Code.
Do you think there should be liability for online platforms if they fail to take down, in a timely manner, content that is hate according to the Criminal Code .
10:30 a.m.
Barrister and Solicitor, Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms
You're presuming, as a foundational premise, that there's a problem with the Criminal Code and the way it's enforced. That hasn't been established. I know that people are complaining—
10:30 a.m.
Liberal
Nathaniel Erskine-Smith Liberal Beaches—East York, ON
Do you think the Criminal Code is an effective instrument right now, based on everything we've seen, in enforcing the hate speech laws on content online? Your answer is that it's an effective instrument.
10:35 a.m.
Barrister and Solicitor, Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms
The problem with what is being proposed here is that you're contemplating taking the prosecution of hate speech away from a prosecutor or a Crown attorney—
10:35 a.m.
Liberal
Nathaniel Erskine-Smith Liberal Beaches—East York, ON
No, I'm not contemplating that. I'm contemplating a complementary method.
10:35 a.m.
Barrister and Solicitor, Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms
I would like to answer the question, if I may.
You're talking about the approval of the attorney general and giving it to a tribunal, which is an entirely different entity.
10:35 a.m.
Liberal
Nathaniel Erskine-Smith Liberal Beaches—East York, ON
You're inventing the suggestion. I'm not talking about the human rights tribunal; I'm talking about imposing, through new legislation, some liability on social media platforms that fail to take down hateful content—according to the law as it is—in a timely manner.
10:35 a.m.
Barrister and Solicitor, Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms
Who determines if it's hateful?
10:35 a.m.
Liberal
Nathaniel Erskine-Smith Liberal Beaches—East York, ON
If it's obviously hateful, ultimately, there would be a judicial mechanism. A government agency would find it and, ultimately, there would be a judicial mechanism, if Facebook or Google or whomever disagreed.